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

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/retpwodt9945 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 3D: WILLS AND OTHER DONATIVE TRANSFERS DIVISION I. PROBATE TRANSFERS (WILLS AND INTESTACY) CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS AND BASIC PRINCIPLES § 1.1 Probate Estate Colo.App.2017. Com. (f) quot. in case quot. in disc. Widow filed a creditor's claim against decedent's estate, seeking compensation for end-of-life services she provided to decedent before his death; in the alternative, widow petitioned for an elective share of the estate. The probate court ruled that widow's creditor's claim was time-barred and, in a later order, denied her petition for an elective share. This court dismissed in part, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order barring the creditor's claim, because widow failed to timely appeal from that order. The court rejected widow's argument that the order barring her creditor's claim did not become final until the probate court ruled on her elective-share petition, reasoning that the two petitions initiated independent proceedings. The court noted that widow's petition for an elective share was subject to different statutory requirements and alleged different facts from her petition for a creditor's claim, which arose under a statute that codified the common-law principle set forth in Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 1.1 that a decedent's creditors were entitled, within the time limits imposed by the controlling state law, to have their claims satisfied out of the decedent's probate estate. In re Estate of Gadash, 413 P.3d 272, 276. Vt.2018. Cit. in sup., cit. and quot. in cases cit. in sup.; com. (f) and Rptr's Note 3 quot. in sup. After testator died and the probate court issued a distribution decree in which testator's children received his shares in a company and testator's spouse received the balance of his estate, spouse appealed the probate court's determination that the estate's administrative expenses had to be paid out of her share of the personal estate until it was exhausted. The trial court affirmed, finding, among other things, that, under common-law principles, expenses had to be paid out of the general and residuary devises before specific devises, and that testator's devise to children was specific, while the devises to spouse were either general or residuary. Affirming, this court held that the rule set forth in Restatement Third of Property: Wills & Other Donative Transfers § 1.1 accurately articulated the common-law rule of abatement in Vermont, which set forth a method to allocate an estate's administrative expenses according to the type of gift devised. Avery v. Avery, 192 A.3d 1250, 1255, 1256. CHAPTER 4. REVOCATION OF WILLS § 4.1 Revocation of Wills Tenn.App.2018. Subsec. (a) and b) quot. in sup. Decedent's daughter filed a notice of will contest, alleging that decedent had instructed an unnamed person to destroy a will that disinherited daughter and COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved AgI Printed in the United States of America 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