Crump v. Crump
| Decision Date | 04 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 101905,101905 |
| Citation | 20 Conn.Supp. 471,140 A.2d 143 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Claire C. CRUMP, Executrix (Estate of Walter G. Crump, Jr.) v. Claire C. CRUMP et al. |
Cummings & Lockwood, Stamford, for plaintiff.
Macrides, Zezima & Schwartz, Stamford, for defendant Claire C. Crump.
Alphonse C. Jachimczyk, Stamford, for Constance Eudora Crump, Walter Gray Crump, III, Cynthia Beale Crump, and for undetermined or unborn persons.
Cressy, Bartram, Melvin & Sherwood, Stamford, for National Life Ins. Co. and Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co.
Marsh, Day & Calhoun, Bridgeport, for Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States and John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
Walter Gray Crump, Jr., died May 9, 1956, at the age of 54 years. He left a will dated February 21, 1952, which was admitted to probate by the Probate Court for the district of Darien on May 23, 1956. The plaintiff is the duly qualified executrix under the will. The deceased left him surviving a widow and three children. Under the will, nonresiduary legacies having a total value of $154,000 were left to the widow and nonresiduary legacies of $10,000 were left to each of the three children. The will then provided that the rest, residue and remainder of the testator's property is to be divided into two equal parts. One of said parts is given to the widow and the other part is given to a trustee to divide the same into three equal parts and to hold each of said parts in trust for the benefit of each of the testator's three children. The widow is named executrix and trustee under the will. The will contains the following provision: 'I direct that all inheritance, transfer and estate taxes that may be levied against my estate, or any of the bequests, legacies or devises hereto, be paid out of my residuary estate as an expense of the administration thereof.' I shall refer to this as the tax clause.
The value of the testator's estate for death tax purposes after the payment of debts and administration expenses is $1,972,000. In this amount there are included certain bank accounts which stood in the joint names of the testator and his widow in the amount of $80,000, which passed to the widow upon the death of the testator, and $428,000 in insurance upon the life of the testator, in which the widow and the three children are named beneficiaries. The widow is the income beneficiary of 31 per cent of the life insurance proceeds and the children are income beneficiaries of the remaining 69 per cent of the life insurance proceeds.
The question presented by this action is the extent to which the tax clause constitutes an effective direction against the proration of federal estate taxes and the Connecticut succession tax among the persons interested in the property. It is conceded by all parties in interest that the tax clause constitutes an effective direction against proration of all estate and succession taxes attributable to the nonresiduary legacies provided in the will. The parties are at issue as to whether the tax clause is an effective direction against proration as to estate and succession taxes attributable to the shares of the beneficiaries of the residuary estate and to nontestamentary property in the form of jointly owned property and proceeds of life insurance passing outside the will.
The controlling consideration in the construction of wills is the expressed intention of the testator. In seeking to determine this intent, we examine the language of the entire will in the light of the circumstances which surrounded the testator at the time he executed it, the real question being, not what did the testator mean to say, but what he did mean by what he said. McLaughlin v. Green, 136 Conn. 138, 142, 69 A.2d 289, 15 A.L.R.2d 1210. Since the practical effect of a testamentary direction against proration is to increase the size of some gifts by shifting the burden of absorbing taxes to others, such a directive must be clear and unambiguous....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Campbell (In re Estate of McMahon)
...be clear and unambiguous.” Bunting v. Bunting, 60 Conn.App. 665, 760 A.2d 989, 996 (Conn.App.Ct.2000) ; Crump v. Crump, 20 Conn.Supp. 471, 140 A.2d 143, 144 (Conn.Super.Ct.1957) ; Jerome v. Jerome, 139 Conn. 285, 93 A.2d 139, 141 (Conn.1952) (“The testator should have the right to provide i......
-
Mosher v. United States
...indicated an intention not to prorate the tax burden. See also Starr v. Watrous, 116 Conn. 448, 165 A. 459 (1933); Crump v. Crump, 20 Conn. Sup. 471, 140 A.2d 143 (1957). Applying these general principles to the facts in the instant case, it is the opinion of the Court that the language in ......
-
Second National Bank of New Haven v. United States, 89
...165 A. 459 (1933), but also as the equivalent of a direction against proration among the residuary legatees. Crump v. Crump, 20 Conn.Supp. 471, 140 A.2d 143 (Super.Ct.1957). The "inclusion of them taxes in the same classification as debts, funeral expenses * * *" is an expression of "an int......
- Stern & Co. v. International Harvester Co., 99889
-
Administration of Insolvent Estates in Connecticut
...that receives the nonprobate asset. See In re Estate of Sinqer, 80 Misc. 2d 1006, 363 N.Y.S.2d 746 (1975). 87. Crump v. Crump, 20 Conn. Supp. 471, 474, 140 A.2d 143 (1957); New York Trust Co. v. Doubleday, 144 Conn. 134, 141, 128 A. 2d 192 (1956); Mosher v. United States, 390 F ' Supp. 1041......