Simply stating that a bequest is made for the purpose of providing support is not, in and of itself, sufficient to render a clause exempting the bequest from seizure valid. This statement may certainly help demonstrate the existence of a serious and legitimate interest, particularly by emphasizing that the transferred property is intended to cover the beneficiary’s essential needs.
However, the courts do not limit themselves to the wording used. They examine the circumstances of each case and verify whether the bequest is actually intended to ensure the beneficiary’s maintenance or support. If this purpose is not demonstrated, the exemption clause may be deemed insufficiently justified and, consequently, declared void.