Keith v. Lulofs

724 S.E.2d 695 (2012)

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

Arvid and Lucy were married in 1972. Each had a child from a previous marriage. Arvid and Lucy executed wills that were 'mirror images' of each other. Each will left the estate first to the surviving spouse and then to P and Lulofs (D) equally. Arvid died on March 21, 1996, and his estate passed to Lucy pursuant to the 1987 will. Following Arvid's death, Lucy executed a new will in which she left the entirety of her estate to D and made no provision for P. Lucy died in 2006. After Lucy's death, D attempted to probate Lucy's will, which P challenged. In 1994, Arvid and Lucy took out an insurance policy naming both P and D as the primary beneficiaries, each with a 50% share of the proceeds. Lucy changed the beneficiary percentages on the insurance policy on April 1, 1996, such that P would receive 22% and D would receive 78%. Lucy changed the insurance policy again on May 30, 1996, so that D received 100%. P testified that his father told him that he and Lucy made 'reciprocal wills' leaving everything to D and him in equal shares. He testified that in 1994 Lucy mentioned the life insurance policy, saying that they did this so there 'won't be any money to fight over once we die.' He also testified that shortly before Arvid died, Arvid told him to 'watch out for [Lucy].' Arvid told him that he was going to ensure that everything was divided evenly. P testified that D told him in 2006 that their parents had reciprocal wills. P argued that Arvid and Lucy executed reciprocal wills in 1987 that became an irrevocable contract upon the death of either party. He also alleged that the estate was to be funded with the proceeds of the life insurance policy and that the policy was evidence of the testators' intent to make the 1987 wills irrevocable. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the wills reflected a contractual agreement to bind the survivor. The court concluded that the insurance policy shed little light on the intent of the testators to make the wills irrevocable. The circuit court accepted Lucy's 1996 will for probate and entered judgment accordingly. P appealed.