Ernest v. Chumley

936 N.E.2d 602 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Robert and Dorothy (D) married, each having had two children from a previous marriage. In August 2000, Robert and D each executed mutual wills that, with the exception of references to name and gender, contained identical reciprocal clauses. Each will left their entire estate to the other spouse whose will then became irrevocable with a disposition to all of their four children. In April 2003, Robert died, owning assets in joint tenancy with D valued at approximately $200,244, which included their home and several bank accounts. Two months after Robert's death, D executed a new will that bequeathed her entire estate to her biological children. In December 2004, D married Thomas Chumley. D executed another will, in which she bequeathed her entire estate to (1) Thomas and, should he predecease her, then to (2) her biological children and Thomas's two children in equal shares. In February 2006, D sold the home she had shared with Robert, depositing the net proceeds of approximately $103,901 into a revocable trust account that she had held in joint tenancy with Robert but now held solely in her name. D then withdrew $96,951 from her trust account and deposited various sums totaling the withdrawal amount into three separate certificates of deposit that she held in joint tenancy with Thomas. Two months before D married Thomas--Ps filed a complaint to construe the will, requesting that the trial court (1) find D's August 2000 mutual will irrevocable, (2) order D to itemize the assets she owned with Robert immediately before his death, and (3) impose a constructive trust, prohibiting (a) D from making gratuitous transfers of those assets and (b) Thomas's or D's future spouses from making any statutory claims on the itemized assets. At trial, D acknowledged that her June 2003 will, which left her entire estate to her biological children, was contrary to her intent as stated in her August 2000 mutual will. The court found that D's will became irrevocable on Robert's death. It found that all the property of the survivor at the time of his or her death was subject to the testamentary scheme regardless of how obtained. The will gave the survivor the unfettered right to use the property as each saw fit. There is absolutely no restriction in the wills on the use by the survivor. Because there was no restriction imposing a constructive trust was not provided for in the performable terms of the agreement. It refused to impose the trust. Ps appealed.