Walters v. Stewart

Defendant had a sacred duty as executor of his father's estate to acknowledge that a prior $50,000 transfer from his father was an advancement on his inheritance.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In 1995, Howell Stewart gave his son, Howell Stewart, Jr. “Stewart” $50,000. When Mr. Stewart died, his daughter, Alice Walters, sought a declaratory judgment that the $50,000 was an advancement against Stewart’s inheritance. Walters also alleged that Stewart breached his fiduciary duty as executor by failing to acknowledge the advancement. Stewart moved for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that the money could not be considered an advancement because there was no written documentation providing that it was an advancement, as required by the Revised Probate Code of 1998.1 The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. For reasons that follow, we reverse. On appeal, we review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence and all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.2 Viewed in this manner, the record shows that Stewart’s father executed his last will and testament in 1972. In 1995, Stewart’s father gave Stewart $50,000, which was used to purchase a lake house. According to friends and family members, Stewart’s father intended the money to be an advancement against Stewart’s inheritance.

At the time the money was transferred, no writing was required to document an advancement against an inheritance.3 Rather, the intention of the testator governed, and such intent could be proved with parol evidence.4 In 1998, however, before Stewart’s father died, the probate code was revised to state that an intent to treat the lifetime transfer of money as an advancement is shown only if the will provides for the deduction of the lifetime transfer or its value or if the satisfaction or advancement is declared in a writing signed by the transferor within 30 days of making the transfer or acknowledged in a writing signed by the recipient at any time.5 Stewart’s father never recorded in writing that he intended the $50,000 to constitute an advancement, and Stewart never acknowledged that the money was an advancement.

Walters v. Stewart

Defendant had a sacred duty as executor of his father's estate to acknowledge that a prior $50,000 transfer from his father was an advancement on his inheritance.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report