About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Case Citations [1] (July 2020 - April 2021)

handle is hein.ali/retpwodt9949 and id is 1 raw text is: PROPERTY 3D: WILLS AND OTHER
DONATIVE TRANSFERS
Generally
Conn.2020. Cit. generally in sup. Beneficiaries of two family trusts created by grandfather and great-
grandmother brought a declaratory action against co-beneficiaries, alleging that the trusts conveyed the
trust corpus directly to the grandchildren of grandfather upon the death of the measuring lives, which
included the lives of all three of grandfather's children, because the terms of the trusts gifted trust assets
to the grantors' issue who were then living at the time the trusts expired. The trial court entered
judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that the proper interpretation of the trusts was that
the trust corpus should be divided equally among the three children of grandfather. The court rejected
plaintiffs' assertion that it was improper to look to the Restatement Second of Property: Donative
Transfers and the Restatement Third of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers to interpret the
trusts because those Restatements did not exist at the time the trusts were created, and explained that
courts were not limited to law decided prior to the execution of the trust instruments. Schwerin v.
Ratcliffe, 238 A.3d 1, 16.
DIVISION I. PROBATE TRANSFERS (WILLS AND INTESTACY)
CHAPTER 5. POST-EXECUTION EVENTS AFFECTING WILLS
§ 5.5 Antilapse Statutes
Ala.2019. Cit. in case quot. in sup.; com. (f) quot. in sup. After testator died, leaving a will in which she
devised her entire estate to her sister and expressly disinherited all her other heirs, testator's nieces filed
a motion asserting that sister had predeceased testator and that they were entitled to receive testator's
estate as sister's surviving children under the state's antilapse statute. The probate court conducted a
hearing and found that the disinheritance language in testator's will precluded the operation of the
antilapse statute, and that the testator's estate escheated to the state. This court reversed and remanded,
holding that nieces were entitled to take sister's share of testator's estate, because testator failed to
include language in her will preventing nieces from inheriting or the antilapse statute from applying. The
court noted that, under Alabama law and Restatement Third of Property: Wills & Other Donative
Transfers § 5.5, antilapse statutes were to be given the widest possible sphere of operation and could
only be defeated when the trier of fact determined that the testator wanted to disinherit the line of
descent headed by the deceased devisee. Norwood v. Barclay, 298 So.3d 1051, 1055.
DIVISION III. PROTECTIVE DOCTRINES
COPYRIGHT ©2021 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
All rights reserved
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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most