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

trialwilldivorce

appealtrialwill

Related Cases

Purce v. Patterson, 275 Va. 190, 654 S.E.2d 885

Facts

Marrill and Dorothy Purce were married in July 1988, but their marriage was tumultuous, marked by physical abuse and multiple protective orders obtained by Dorothy against Marrill. After agreeing to separate in June 2000, Dorothy filed for divorce in January 2003, but the divorce was never finalized. During their separation, Marrill did not provide any support to Dorothy, who lived with her daughter in New Jersey during her final illness. Marrill was unaware of Dorothy's condition and did not attempt to communicate with her.

Dorothy and Marrill had a tumultuous marriage. Dorothy complained to her daughter and friends of Marrill's treatment of her. In April 1997, Dorothy obtained a protective order against Marrill based on his physical abuse of her, and she renewed the order a few months later. The protective order expired in June 1998, and the parties resumed cohabitation. In October of 1998, Dorothy sought another protective order, claiming she was under severe stress because Marrill's girlfriend was harassing her, Marrill was drinking and staying out late every night, and she was afraid that she might have a stroke.

Issue

Did Marrill W. Purce willfully abandon his wife, thereby barring him from an elective share of her augmented estate?

1 In this appeal, Marrill first asserts that in determining whether he abandoned his wife, the trial court erred in considering facts occurring subsequent to the couple's agreed-upon separation. Marrill argues that post-separation conduct is not relevant to whether one spouse abandoned the other. We disagree.

Rule

Under Code § 64.1–16.3, if a husband or wife willfully deserts or abandons their spouse and such abandonment continues until the death of the spouse, the party who deserted the deceased spouse shall be barred from all interest in the estate.

2 3 Code § 64.1–16.3(A) specifically addresses the period of abandonment that is relevant to a claim for an elective share: If a husband or wife willfully deserts or abandons his or her spouse and such desertion or abandonment continues until the death of the spouse, the party who deserted the deceased spouse shall be barred of all interest in the estate of the other by intestate succession, elective share, exempt property, family allowance, and homestead allowance.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining Marrill's conduct both before and after the separation. It determined that his lack of support and care for Dorothy, as well as his failure to communicate with her during her illness, demonstrated a willful abandonment. The court emphasized that the relevant time period for determining abandonment extends to the time of the deceased spouse's death, not just the moment of separation.

The record shows that both before and after Dorothy and Marrill agreed to separate, Marrill's conduct showed a lack of support for Dorothy and the marital relationship. While living together or apart, Marrill provided Dorothy with little or no support or care during her illnesses and recoveries. Financially, Dorothy brought her rental properties into the marriage and managed the properties alone while living with Marrill. Marrill did not contribute to Dorothy's support in this regard.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Marrill was not entitled to an elective share of Dorothy's augmented estate due to his willful abandonment.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court that Marrill was not eligible for an elective share of Dorothy's augmented estate.

Who won?

Dorothy M. Purce's estate prevailed because the court found that Marrill willfully abandoned her, which barred him from claiming an elective share.

Affirmed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Fulwood v. Fulwood, 161 N.C. 601, 77 S.E. 763

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolfe, 243 N.C. 469, 91 S.E.2d 246

Island Car Wash, Inc. v. Norris, 292 S.C. 595, 358 S.E.2d 150

Jenkins v. Jenkins, 991 S.W.2d 440

Matter of Estate of Corbett, 289 N.C.App. 629, 888 S.E.2d 408 (Table), 2023 WL 4340518