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 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?