In re the Estate of Whipple

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Estate of Whipple

369 N.E.2d 9, 42 N.Y.2d 1031, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2368

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 4, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 369 N.E.2d 9 (In re the Estate of Whipple) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Whipple, 369 N.E.2d 9, 42 N.Y.2d 1031, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2368 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order should be affirmed.

[1032]*1032In providing a general bequest for the wife, the will did so in terms of a fraction of the "estate remaining after the deduction of debts, funeral and administrative expenses”. It in no other way qualified the definition of "estate” so as to create a different base for the computation of the amount of that bequest.

In the absence of the expression of a contrary intention (cf. Wetmore v Parker, 52 NY 450, 463; Matter of Ginsburg, 27 Misc 2d 586, 588), a will speaks from the time of death (Beetson v Stoops, 186 NY 456, 460; Matter of Gernon, 35 Misc 2d 12, 13). In this case, the decedent, upon his death, ceased to have any interest which he could pass by will in the two parcels of realty which he and his wife had come to hold as tenants by the entirety (5A Warren’s Weed New York Real Property, Tenancy by Entirety, § 1.05). Consequently, the two parcels were not part of his "estate” (see Sulz v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn., 145 NY 563, 574; Matter of Basile, 63 Misc 2d 845, 846) and may not be used in determining the amount of the widow’s general bequest.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondents payable out of the estate, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. The order should be affirmed.

[1032]*1032In providing a general bequest for the wife, the will did so in terms of a fraction of the "estate remaining after the deduction of debts, funeral and administrative expenses”. It in no other way qualified the definition of "estate” so as to create a different base for the computation of the amount of that bequest.

In the absence of the expression of a contrary intention (cf. Wetmore v Parker, 52 NY 450, 463; Matter of Ginsburg, 27 Misc 2d 586, 588), a will speaks from the time of death (Beetson v Stoops, 186 NY 456, 460; Matter of Gernon, 35 Misc 2d 12, 13). In this case, the decedent, upon his death, ceased to have any interest which he could pass by will in the two parcels of realty which he and his wife had come to hold as tenants by the entirety (5A Warren’s Weed New York Real Property, Tenancy by Entirety, § 1.05). Consequently, the two parcels were not part of his "estate” (see Sulz v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn., 145 NY 563, 574; Matter of Basile, 63 Misc 2d 845, 846) and may not be used in determining the amount of the widow’s general bequest.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs to respondents payable out of the estate, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 N.E.2d 9, 42 N.Y.2d 1031, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-whipple-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack