•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 42 > Issue 6 (1944)

 

Abstract

Testatrix provided in her will that she intentionally omitted all of her heirs not specifically mentioned, "intending thereby to disinherit them," and provided further that "any such persons, or heirs, or any devisees or legatees" contesting the will should receive $1.00. She married after making the will, and this is a petition by the surviving husband to determine heirship. He claims an intestate share of the estate by virtue of a statutory provision that marriage revokes a will as to the surviving spouse "unless provision has been made for the spouse by marriage contract, or unless the spouse is provided for in the will, or in such way mentioned therein as to show an intention not to make such provision." The lower court held that the husband was provided for in the will to the extent of $1.00, and that the will was therefore not revoked by marriage. On appeal, held, reversed; testatrix apparently had in contemplation only the persons who at the time of execution of the will could conceivably be heirs or potential heirs. There is no claim that testatrix and contestant were engaged to marry, or even acquainted at the time the will was executed, so testatrix cannot be said to have provided for her after-acquired husband or to have mentioned him in such a way as to exclude him. In re Axcelrod's Estate, (Cal. 1944) 147 P. (2d) I.

Download

Share

COinS