IN RE ESTATE OF KURALT 15 P.3d 931 (2000) CASE BRIEF

IN RE ESTATE OF KURALT

15 P.3d 931 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The estate of the deceased (P) appealed a judgment that a letter written by the deceased two weeks before his death expressed an intent to transfer property to appellee (D) and the letter was a codicil to the deceased's formal will.

FACTS: Charles Kuralt and Elizabeth Shannon maintained a long-term and intimate personal relationship. They keep their relationship secret, even from Kuralt's wife, Petie. Over a 30-year course of their relationship, Kuralt and Shannon saw each other regularly and maintained contact by phone and mail. Kuralt was the primary source of financial support for Shannon and established close, personal relationships with Shannon's three children. Kuralt provided financial support for a joint business venture managed by Shannon and transferred a home in Ireland to Shannon as a gift. In 1985, he purchased a 20-acre parcel of property and constructed a cabin on this 20-acre parcel. Later he then purchased two additional parcels which adjoined the original 20-acre parcel. This created a parcel of approximately 90 acres the subject of this appeal. On May 3, 1989, Kuralt executed a holographic will. It left the land, buildings, furnishings and personal belongings of the Montana property to Shannon. Kuralt mailed a copy of this holographic will to Shannon. He then executed a formal will on May 4, 1994, in New York City. That will does not specifically mention any of the real property owned by Kuralt. The beneficiaries of the formal will were his wife, Petie, and the Kuralts' two children. Shannon was not named as a beneficiary in Kuralt's formal will. On April 9, 1997, Kuralt deeded his interest in the original 20-acre parcel with the cabin to Shannon. A second transaction was to take place in September 1997 but he became suddenly ill and entered a New York hospital on June 18, 1997. Kuralt wrote a letter that said he'll have a lawyer visit the hospital to be sure you inherit the rest of the place in MT. if it comes to that. In the letter were two checks made payable to Shannon, one for $8000 and the other for $9000. Kuralt did not seek the assistance of an attorney to devise the remaining 90 acres of Big Hole land to Shannon. Therefore, when Kuralt died unexpectedly, Shannon sought to probate the letter of June 18, 1997, as a valid holographic codicil to Kuralt's formal 1994 will. The Estate opposed Shannon's Petition for Ancillary Probate because letter expressed only a future intent to make a will. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the Estate on May 26, 1998. Shannon appealed. The decision was reversed and remanded the case for trial in order to resolve disputed issues of material fact. The District Court held for Shannon; the letter was a valid holographic codicil to Kuralt's formal will. The Estate appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner