An excellent example is found in the case of Juran v. Epstein, which was decided by the California Court of Appeal in late March 1994.
When David Epstein married Charlotte in 1962, each had children from a prior marriage. In 1985, they signed wills leaving all property to the surviving spouse; after both died, the property would be equally divided between David's daughter and Charlotte's daughter, Karen.
Two months after Charlotte died in 1990, David changed his will to leave all his property to his own daughter. Karen found out and sued David, asking the court to force him to restore her bequest.
Under California law, David could not alter his will if he and Charlotte had agreed not to revise their wills after one of them died. Before trial, Karen's case was dismissed by the judge because she did not have written evidence of an agreement.
The appellate court ruled that Karen was entitled to a trial, and that the trial judge could enforce an oral agreement.
This problem could be avoided by a clearer statement of intent by the parties making the wills (thus expressly allowing or limiting the survivor's right to make changes), or by using testamentary trusts (to prevent disinheritance while providing for the surviving spouse's needs).
Click here to view our Message Board.
Go to List of Recent Newsletter Articles by Mark J. Welch
Go to Table of Contents for Mark J. Welch's Booklet, "Estate Planning for California Residents"
Select Here for Links to Other Law & Estate Planning Web Pages
