Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealtrialwill
statuteappealtrialwillappellee

Related Cases

Fiske v. Fiske, 95 A.D.2d 929, 464 N.Y.S.2d 282
View Case »
Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Clyde, 143 Conn. 247, 121 A.2d 625
View Case »
Nichols v. Suiters, 420 Md. 81, 21 A.3d 1063 (Table)
View Case »
Ryan v. Ward, 3 Sickels 204, 48 N.Y. 204, 1872 WL 9794, 8 Am.Rep. 539
View Case »
Bucquet v. Livingston, 57 Cal.App.3d 914, 129 Cal.Rptr. 514
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Blevins v. Moran, 12 S.W.3d 698

Facts

Dr. Frank D. Peterson died testate, leaving a will that included bequests to several beneficiaries, some of whom pre-deceased him. The surviving issue of these pre-deceased beneficiaries claimed their ancestors' bequests under Kentucky's anti-lapse statute, KRS 394.400. The co-executors of the estate, Barkley and Donald Blevins, argued that the will's residuary clause indicated an intent to award the lapsed gifts to them instead of the surviving children.

Brothers Barkley and Donald Blevins appeal from an October 30, 1998, judgment of Fayette Circuit Court construing the last will and testament of their uncle, Dr. Frank D. Peterson.

Issue

Did the will's residuary clause indicate the testator's intent to avoid the operation of Kentucky's anti-lapse statute, thereby entitling the residuary beneficiaries to the lapsed gifts?

The Court of Appeals, Knopf, J., held that will's residuary clause, reciting that residue was to include lapsed and failed gifts did not, by itself, establish testator's intent to avoid operation of anti-lapse statute.

Rule

Under KRS 394.400, if a devisee or legatee dies before the testator, leaving issue who survive the testator, such issue shall take the estate devised or bequeathed unless a different disposition is made in the will.

That statute, KRS 394.400, provides as follows: If a devisee or legatee dies before the testator, or is dead at the making of the will, leaving issue who survive the testator, such issue shall take the estate devised or bequeathed, as the devisee or legatee would have done if he had survived the testator, unless a different disposition thereof is made or required by the will.

Analysis

The court analyzed the will's language and the anti-lapse statute, concluding that the residuary clause did not clearly express an intent to override the anti-lapse statute. The court emphasized that the presumption against lapse was strong and that the will's language was ambiguous, failing to provide clear evidence of the testator's intent to distribute the lapsed gifts to the residuary beneficiaries.

The trial court, on the other hand, understood KRS 394.400 as preventing the 'lapse' of the contested gifts in the first place, thus rendering the will's residuary clause inapplicable to them.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the surviving children were entitled to their ancestors' bequests under the anti-lapse statute.

We agree with these commentators and with the trial court that the residuary clause of Dr. Peterson's will does not, by itself, establish Dr. Peterson's intent to avoid the operation of KRS 394.400.

Who won?

The surviving children of the pre-deceased beneficiaries prevailed because the court found that the anti-lapse statute applied, and the will did not express a contrary intent.

The appellees, the surviving issue of the four pre-deceased beneficiaries, successfully maintained in the trial court that under the anti-lapse statute they were entitled, respectively, to their ancestors' bequests.

You must be