Estate of Beauchamp
| Decision Date | 03 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 115 Ariz. 219,564 P.2d 908 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of Joseph R. BEAUCHAMP, Deceased. Dorothy J. BEAUCHAMP, Surviving Spouse, Appellant, v. Simone EICHENBERGER, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph R. Beauchamp, Deceased, the Estate of Joseph R. Beauchamp, Deceased, and Monique Beauchamp, Michelle Beauchamp, Lisa Beauchamp, Denise Beauchamp, Joseph Beauchamp, Jr. and Simone Eichenberger, the children of Joseph R. Beauchamp, Deceased and claimants, Appellees. 2215. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
In 1951 the deceased married Dorothy C. Beauchamp (hereinafter referred to as Dorothy I). Six children were born as the result of this marriage. On October 30, 1964, in connection with a divorce action, a property settlement agreement was entered into between the deceased and Dorothy I. This agreement which was incorporated into the divorce decree provided, inter alia:
'8. Husband further agrees to execute a Last Will and Testament leaving his entire estate, real and personal, wheresoever located, to the children of the marriage of the parties. Husband further agrees that he will have the attorney who prepares his Last Will and Testament, at various times during his life, notify the Wife by certifying that the Will as prepared by said attorney conforms to the provisions of this paragraph No. 8.
11. All property now owned, or in the future acquired by a party hereunder, shall be the sole and separate property of such party. Each party shall have an immediate right to transfer, dispose of, by Will (except limited in paragraph 8) deed or bill of sale, or in any other manner, such party's interest in all property belonging to such party after the date hereof, and this right shall extend to all future acquisitions of property by such party, as well as to all property acquired by said party pursuant to this Agreement.
* * *'
On November 20, 1972 the deceased executed his will leaving all of his property to his children. On March 31, 1973, the decedent married appellant, Dorothy J. Beauchamp, hereinafter referred to as Dorothy II.
When decedent died on June 19, 1974, his will of November 20, 1972 was admitted into probate. The inventory and appraisement filed in the probate court shows the net value of the estate to be $83,020.30 and consists entirely of the separate property of the decedent. Dorothy II, who is not mentioned in this will, applied under A.R.S. § 14--2403 for a maintenance allowance and the court granted her an allowance of $500 per month for one year.
The decedent's children timely filed a claim against the estate and a petition for allowance of the claim requesting the court to find the property settlement agreement a binding claim against the estate. Dorothy II objected to the claim on the grounds that she was an omitted spouse under the provisions of A.R.S. § 14--2301 and therefore entitled to the share of the estate she would have received had the decedent died intestate. The trial court found that the children had a claim to the Entire estate.
Appellant presents two questions for review: (1) Is Dorothy II entitled to a share of the estate as an omitted spouse? (2) Did the property settlement agreement operate to preclude Dorothy II from receiving a maintenance allowance under A.R.S. § 14--2403? (3) Is the claim of the children the type of claim contemplated by A.R.S. § 14--1201?
Dorothy II contends that paragraph 8 of the property settlement agreement is void as against public policy and she is therefore an omitted spouse under A.R.S. § 14--2301 which states:
'A. If a testator fails to provide by will for his surviving spouse Who married the testator after the execution of the will, the omitted spouse shall receive the same share of the estate he would have received if the decedent left no will Unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional or the testator provided for the spouse by transfer outside the will and the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by statements of the testator or from the amount of the transfer or other evidence.
B. In satisfying a share provided by this section, the devises made by the will abate as provided in Sec. 14--3902.' (Emphasis added)
An omitted spouse is entitled to one-half of the separate estate by virtue of the provisions of A.R.S. § 14--2102(2).
A.R.S. § 14--2301 is similar to § 2--301 of the Uniform Probate Code which states in its comment that this section reflects the view that the intestate share of the spouse is what the decedent would want the spouse to have if he had thought about the relationship of his old will to the new situation. Uniform Laws Annot., Vol. 8, p. 341. It does not appear from the will that the omission of Dorothy II was intentional and she is an omitted spouse.
Analysis of the property settlement agreement discloses that it did not prevent the decedent from disposing of his property prior to his death. He could have made a gift to Dorothy II of all his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Levine, Matter of
...claims procedure outlined in the statutes. See In re Estate of Moore, 137 Ariz. 176, 669 P.2d 609 (App.1983); In re Estate of Beauchamp, 115 Ariz. 219, 564 P.2d 908 (App.1977). The purpose of the statutory claims procedure is to facilitate and expedite the speedy and orderly administration ......
-
Lockett v. Lockett (In re Estate of Lockett)
...would not limit the scope of the "estate" unless that was the parties' intent. 2. Linda also cites Estate of Beauchamp v. Eichenberger, 115 Ariz. 219, 220, 564 P.2d 908, 909 (App. 1977), for the proposition that Joe was free to dispose of his assets, during his lifetime, as he saw fit. We c......
-
Knudsen's Estate, Matter of, 3107
...v. Dunlap, 372 So.2d 218 (Fla.App.1979); Matter of Estate of Beaman, 119 Ariz.App. 614, 583 P.2d 270 (1978); and Estate of Beauchamp, 115 Ariz.App. 219, 564 P.2d 908 (1977). None are helpful in explaining the meaning of this particular Uniform Probate Code section or the Editorial Board Com......
-
Estate of Moore, Matter of
...298 P.2d 479 (Wash.1956). Under Arizona law, a contract to devise property may be enforceable. A.R.S. § 14-2701; Estate of Beauchamp, 115 Ariz. 219, 564 P.2d 908 (Ct.App.1977). Under the common-law rule, an agreement not to revoke a will had to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. E.......