“Mirror-image” language in
reciprocal wills is not enough to keep a surviving spouse from diverting
a stepchild’s inheritance, under a new decision released today by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
When Arvid and Lucy Keith married in 1972, each had a child from a prior marriage. In 1987, the Keiths made wills that were “mirror images,” with each leaving the estate to the surviving spouse, then in equal parts to Arvid’s son Walter Keith and Lucy’s daughter Venocia Lulofs.
Arvid died in 1996 and his estate passed to Lucy. She made a new will leaving everything to her daughter. When Lucy died in 2006, Keith challenged Lulofs’ attempted probate of the will.
But his uncorroborated testimony about what the parents intended was not enough to get a share of the estate. The attorney who drafted the 1987 wills had no recollection of what the couple intended. The married couple’s designation of a 50-50 split to their offspring of their life insurance proceeds did not mean they had a binding contract to keep that same split for their property when they died.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed there was no irrevocable contract. Going along with Keith’s view of the evidence would mean a mirror-image will could “hamstring” a surviving spouse’s ability to provide for any future spouse or child born or adopted during a subsequent marriage, the high court said in Keith v. Lulofs.
When Arvid and Lucy Keith married in 1972, each had a child from a prior marriage. In 1987, the Keiths made wills that were “mirror images,” with each leaving the estate to the surviving spouse, then in equal parts to Arvid’s son Walter Keith and Lucy’s daughter Venocia Lulofs.
Arvid died in 1996 and his estate passed to Lucy. She made a new will leaving everything to her daughter. When Lucy died in 2006, Keith challenged Lulofs’ attempted probate of the will.
But his uncorroborated testimony about what the parents intended was not enough to get a share of the estate. The attorney who drafted the 1987 wills had no recollection of what the couple intended. The married couple’s designation of a 50-50 split to their offspring of their life insurance proceeds did not mean they had a binding contract to keep that same split for their property when they died.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia agreed there was no irrevocable contract. Going along with Keith’s view of the evidence would mean a mirror-image will could “hamstring” a surviving spouse’s ability to provide for any future spouse or child born or adopted during a subsequent marriage, the high court said in Keith v. Lulofs.
No comments:
Post a Comment