Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/retpwodt0040 and id is 1 raw text is: 





             PROPERTY 3D: WILLS AND OTHER

                        DONATIVE TRANSFERS





                          DIVISION   III. PROTECTIVE   DOCTRINES

      CHAPTER 8.   INVALIDITY DUE TO THE DONOR'S INCAPACITY OR ANOTHER'S
                                       WRONGDOING

                              PART   C. NO-CONTEST CLAUSES

   8.5 No-Contest Clauses

  Miss.2015. Cit. in sup., com. (b) quot. in sup., com. (c) quot. in sup. and in ftn. In a probate dispute,
  decedent's daughter alleged that decedent's son unduly influenced decedent, who was suffering from
  dementia and drug addiction, causing him to make a new will in 2010 that significantly altered the
  distributions provided by a previous will that he had executed in 1998. After a jury found that the 2010
  will was valid and enforceable and that son had not exerted undue influence on decedent, the trial court
  determined that daughter was no longer a beneficiary of the 2010 will pursuant to its forfeiture in
  terrorem clause. This court reversed and rendered judgment allowing daughter to inherit in accordance
  with the 2010 will, holding that Mississippi law recognized a good-faith and probable-cause exception
  to a forfeiture in terrorem clause in a will, and that daughter had sufficiently shown that her suit was
  brought in good faith and was founded on probable cause. The court cited Restatement Third of
  Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers  8.5 in reasoning that enforcement of such a provision
  without a probable-cause exception would frustrate the fundamental purpose of the courts to ascertain
  the truth. Parker v. Benoist, 160 So.3d 198, 205, 206, 209, 212.



                  CHAPTER 9.   PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISINHERITANCE

            PART  A. PROTECTIONS AGAINST INTENTIONAL DISINHERITANCE

   9.2 Surviving Spouse's Elective Share Under the Revised Uniform Probate Code

  Colo.2015. Com. (a) cit. in disc. Wife filed a petition to take her statutory elective share of husband's
  estate in lieu of the life estate specified in husband's will. After husband's children objected to wife's
  proposed valuation, the probate court determined the amount of the elective share and granted wife an
  equitable award to reflect the estate's earnings over several years of litigation. The court of appeals
  reversed and ordered wife to repay the equitable award, plus restitutionary interest. Affirming in part,
  this court held that, under the probate code, the amount of a spouse's elective share had to be determined
  based on the value of the augmented estate on the date of the decedent's death, rather than on the date of
  distribution. The court noted that, under the contemporary approach reflected in Restatement Third of




_  Al i     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 nearly 2,700 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.



Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?