About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through August 2018)

handle is hein.ali/retpwodt9944 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 3D: WILLS AND OTHER DONATIVE TRANSFERS DIVISION II. NONPROBATE TRANSFERS (GIFTS AND WILL SUBSTITUTES) CHAPTER 7. WILL SUBSTITUTES § 7.1 Will Substitute-Definition and Validity W.Va.2017. Quot. in sup. and cit. in ftn. After decedent who had formed a partnership with son died intestate, son filed an action against decedent's wife, individually and in her capacity as administrator of decedent's estate, alleging that, under the partnership agreement, he had an option to purchase decedent's entire one-half interest in the partnership, which was valued at approximately $1 million, for $50,000; wife counterclaimed, contending that her elective share had to be based on the full value of the partnership rather than on the option price. The trial court granted summary judgment for son. Reversing and remanding, this court held that the option was unenforceable against wife for purposes of determining her elective share. The court reasoned, in part, that, under Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 7.1, the option was a will substitute, because it vested a contract right in son during decedent's life that son would not enjoy until decedent's death, and decedent retained full control over the partnership and its proceeds during his life. Young v. Young, 808 S.E.2d 631, 639, 640. § 7.2 Application of Will Doctrines to Will Substitutes W.Va.2017. Com. (a) quot. in sup. and cit. in ftn. After decedent who had formed a partnership with son died intestate, son filed an action against decedent's wife, individually and in her capacity as administrator of decedent's estate, alleging that, under the partnership agreement, he had an option to purchase decedent's entire one-half interest in the partnership, which was valued at approximately $1 million, for $50,000; wife counterclaimed, contending that her elective share had to be based on the full value of the partnership rather than on the option price. The trial court granted summary judgment for son. Reversing and remanding, this court held that the option was unenforceable against wife for purposes of determining her elective share. The court explained that, under Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 7.2, the option was a will substitute that was subject to substantive restrictions on testation and to rules of construction and other rules applicable to testamentary dispositions, including the elective-share statute. Young v. Young, 808 S.E.2d 631, 640. DIVISION IV. CONSTRUCTION, REFORMATION, AND MODIFICATION OF DONATIVE DOCUMENTS CHAPTER 10. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 10.2 Permissible Evidence for Determining Donor's Intention For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most