Friedman v. Hannan

987 A.2d 60 (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

James Hannan married Anna Zelinski. They divorced on February 6, 2001, with no children born during the marriage. They entered into a property settlement agreement. Zelinski testified Hannan met all of his obligations under that agreement. Hannan never remarried. During the marriage, Hannan executed a will that he never changed after the divorce. Under paragraph four, if they were to die simultaneously Hannan’s surviving immediate family members and the surviving immediate family members “of his wife” were to divide their property. Hannon died with the “marriage” will in place. He did not remarry. Jerome B. Hannan (D) filed the Will with the Register of Wills, and he was appointed personal representative of the estate. Lydia Friedman (P), one of Zelinski’s family members, claimed the clause entitled them to the property under the will. D argued that the provision only applied during the marriage. The court found that P was entitled to a distribution only if the Decedent died in a common disaster with his wife. The court ordered that the Will not be admitted to probate, effectively leaving the Decedent intestate. Both parties appealed and a trial was held at the Circuit Court. P testified that her named family members were her sisters and two of her nieces. She admitted that Decedent did not know her named family members prior to their marriage and that those family members did not live with them during the marriage. The decedent's divorce attorney testified that Decedent was a merchant marine, an avocation that required him to live away from his wife on a boat for several weeks at a time. The Circuit Court held that Item Four was a residuary clause and that Decedent died testate. It allowed the immediate family members to take under the clause but not those of P. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. P appealed.