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

trustwill
contractfiduciarywill

Related Cases

Talcott v. Talcott, 423 So.2d 951
View Case »
In re Tompkins’ Estate, nan
View Case »
Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646
View Case »
Dunkley v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 728 F.Supp. 547
View Case »
Whatley v. Wood, 157 Colo. 552, 404 P.2d 537
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Erstein’s Estate, 205 Misc. 924, 129 N.Y.S.2d 316

Facts

The testator, who died on March 14, 1952, had a will dated February 15, 1945, that made no provision for his second wife, Harriet H. Nalley. He had previously entered into a separation agreement with his first wife, Florence Kohler, which required him to create a testamentary trust for her benefit. After divorcing Kohler in 1935, the testator remarried Nalley. The administratrix sought a court ruling on whether Nalley's right to elect against the will was affected by the separation agreement.

The testator died on March 14, 1952, leaving a will dated February 15, 1945, which contained no bequest to his widow. She elected to take against the will.

Issue

Whether the testator's second wife was entitled to elect to take against the will despite the separation agreement that directed the disposition of his estate for the benefit of his first wife.

The widow contends that her right of election was not impaired or defeated by the separation agreement and that she is entitled to receive one-third of the testator's net estate.

Rule

Under Decedent Estate Law, § 18, a surviving spouse has the right to elect to take against the will, which cannot be overridden by a prior separation agreement.

Section 18 gives to each spouse a property right which, during the lifetime of the other, is merely expectant and contingent.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the separation agreement and the statutory rights of the surviving spouse. It concluded that the widow's right to elect against the will was not impaired by the separation agreement, as the law protects the rights of surviving spouses to ensure they are not disinherited. The court referenced previous cases that supported the widow's right to her intestate share, emphasizing that the obligations to the first wife did not negate the statutory rights of the second wife.

The court is of the view that section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law does limit the power of a married person to bind himself by contract to devise and bequeath his property in a manner that would deprive the surviving spouse of her statutory rights.

Conclusion

The court held that the widow had the right to elect to take against the will and was entitled to receive her one-third intestate share of the estate.

The court, therefore, holds that the widow had the right to elect to take against the will and that she is entitled to receive her one-third intestate share.

Who won?

Harriet H. Nalley, the testator's second wife, prevailed because the court recognized her statutory right to elect against the will, which was upheld despite the separation agreement.

The accounting fiduciary does not dispute the right of the widow to take against the will but in her petition she suggests that the widow's right is subordinate to the obligation of the testator to his former wife.

You must be