Brief Fact Summary. Kuralt executed a will disposing his real property to his wife and children. Two weeks before his death, Kuralt wrote a letter to his mistress, Elizabeth Shannon, expressing his desire that she inherit a specific item of real property. Shannon attempted to probate the letter.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a second will does not make a complete disposition of the testator’s estate, the second will is a codicil the first will. A letter expresses testamentary intent where the evidence shows the testator believed that he was close to death at the time of writing the letter and the facts show that intent to convey a specific item of property to a particular beneficiary.
Whether a letter indicating that the testator will take actions to ensure that a beneficiary will inherit property expresses present testamentary intent or a future intent to make a will?
Whether a document that does not dispose of the testator’s entire estate is a codicil?
Kuralt’s 1997 letter to Shannon expressed testamentary intent, not a future intent to create a will. The facts show the testator was sick at the time of writing the letter and died two weeks later. The testator was close to death when he wrote the letter and used the word, “inherit.” He conveyed a minor part of the parcel to the beneficiary during the last few months of his life and became suddenly ill while in the process of conveying the remaining portion of the land to the beneficiary. The testator shared a long close relationship with the beneficiary before his death. He supported her financially during her lifetime and enclosed two checks along with the letter.
Yes. The 1997 letter is a codicil to his will because the testator only disposed of his remaining ownership interest in the Montana property and did not dispose of his entire estate
We review a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous; we review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct.View Full Point of Law