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

statuteappealtrustwillappellant

statutewillappellant

Related Cases

Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646

Facts

The appellant, Virginia Thompson, married the 83-year-old testator six weeks before his death. The testator had executed his last will in 1976, leaving the bulk of his estate in trust for his granddaughter, and later bequeathed shares of stock to Thompson in codicils executed in 1977 and 1979. After the testator's death, Thompson filed a petition claiming she was an 'omitted spouse' entitled to 50 percent of his estate, which was valued at over $10 million. The district court dismissed her petition, leading to this appeal.

Appellant, who married the 83-year-old testator six weeks before his death, contends that she is entitled to 50 percent of his $10 million estate as an 'omitted spouse' under U.C.A., 1953, § 75–2–301. She claims the intestate share specified where 'a testator fails to provide by will for his surviving spouse who married the testator after the execution of the will….'

Issue

Whether the appellant qualifies as an 'omitted spouse' under U.C.A., 1953, § 75–2–301, and whether the executor is estopped from asserting that the widow is barred from claiming proceeds from the sale of an automobile.

Rule

Under U.C.A., 1953, § 75–2–301, an omitted spouse is entitled to the same share of the estate as if the decedent left no will unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional or the testator provided for the spouse by transfer outside the will.

If a testator fails to provide by will for his surviving spouse who married the testator after the execution of the will, the omitted spouse shall receive the same share of the estate he would have received if the decedent left no will unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional or the testator provided for the spouse by transfer outside the will and the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by statements of the testator or from the amount of the transfer or other evidence.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the testator's bequests in the codicils constituted a provision for the surviving spouse that would preclude the application of the omitted spouse statute. It concluded that the bequests, despite being made before the marriage, were sufficient to show that the testator had the appellant in mind, thus preventing her from being classified as an omitted spouse. The court also found that the executor was equitably estopped from denying the widow's claim to the automobile proceeds due to the circumstances surrounding the sale.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's petition as an omitted spouse but reversed the dismissal of her claim to the proceeds from the sale of the automobile, remanding for further proceedings.

Who won?

The executor prevailed in the case regarding the omitted spouse claim because the court found that the testator had made provisions for the widow in his will, thus the omitted spouse statute did not apply.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Trusts for McDonald, 100 A.D.3d 1349, 953 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07430

Lucero v. Lucero, 485 So.2d 347

Troy v. Hart, 116 Md.App. 468, 697 A.2d 113

DiCristofaro v. Beaudry, 113 R.I. 313, 320 A.2d 597

Jackson v. Estate of Henderson, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2010 WL 2636725, 2010 -Ohio- 3084