Thompson v. Thompson

254 A.D. 601, 2 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6692
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 9, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 601 (Thompson v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Thompson, 254 A.D. 601, 2 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

Appeal on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants, other than Mary J. Thompson, from an interlocutory judgment of partition entered in the Rensselaer county clerk’s office on the 11th day of October, 1937. It is the appellants’ contention: (1) That the defendant, by her abandonment of the testator in his lifetime, lost her right of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law; (2) that she waived her right of election by the separation agreement, under subdivision 9 of section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law. The testator and the defendant were married in 1928, and resided together at the home of the testator until October, 1932, at which time the defendant moved all of her household goods out of the testator’s house and never returned. On July 17, 1935, the testator and defendant executed and acknowledged a separation agreement. By that agreement each party waived and released to the other any and all claims that he or she may or might have or claim to have against the other by reason of any matter, cause or thing, whatsoever, from the beginning of the world to the date of the agreement. This clause in the separation agreement waived and condoned the abandonment ¡therefore, the defendant does not lose her right of election by abandonment. There is nothing in the separation agreement that can be construed as a waiver of the election by the defendant of her rights under subdivision 9 of section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law. Interlocutory judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present —■ Hill, P. J., MeNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ. [163 Mise. 946.]

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

Related

In re the Estate of Stoeger
17 A.D.2d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
In re the Estate of Rosenbaum
27 Misc. 2d 492 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1961)
In re the Probate of the Will of Lans
29 Misc. 2d 758 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1960)
In re the Estate of La Due
5 A.D.2d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
In re the Estate of Sturmer
277 A.D.2d 503 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1950)
In re the Construction of the Will of Van Hoecke
197 Misc. 339 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1949)
In re the Probate of the Will of Cote
195 Misc. 410 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1949)
In re the Estate of Schwimmer
8 Misc. 2d 550 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1944)
In re Determining the Validity of the Right of Election in the Estate of Hearn
261 A.D. 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Schoonmaker v. Crounse
261 A.D. 77 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
In re the Estate of McGlone
171 Misc. 612 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D. 601, 2 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-nyappdiv-1938.