Hall's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 11 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. A--588,A--588 |
| Citation | 60 N.J.Super. 597,160 A.2d 49 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of Louis Eaton HALL, Deceased. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Fredric Baar, Red Bank, argued the cause for defendant-appellant, William Le Roy Hall.
Charles Wollny, Jersey City, argued the cause for defendant-respondent, Ronald Hopkins Harknett.
Smith, Slingerland, Trauth & Holtz, Newark, for Maplewood Bank & Trust Co. as Administrator c.t.a.
Before Judges CONFORD, FOLEY and SCHALICK.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SCHALICK, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned)
This issue is presented to the court on a stipulation of facts to determine whether a specific bequest by will of certain bank accounts has been adeemed by the transfer of the moneys from four banks named in the will, during the testator's lifetime, to another bank and a savings and loan association. The County Court held the legacy was limited to the moneys on deposit in the banks named in the will and there was an ademption, and by reason of the failure of the legacy the moneys became a part of the residuary estate. The specific legatees appeal.
It is to be noted that the attorneys for the administrator c.t.a., whose petition for directions as to distribution gave rise to this litigation, wrote the court stating it would not participate in this appeal 'in the interest of conserving the rather small estate of the deceased,' but that its position before the trial court had been in accord with the determination of that court.
The will of the testator was submitted to this court and the pertinent provisions are:
'I, Louis Eaton Hall, of the City of Rochester, Monroe County, New York, being of sound mind and memory, do make, publish and declare this my last Will and Testament, in the manner following, that is to say:
'First: I direct that all of my just debts and funeral expenses be paid.
'Second: I give and bequeath to my nephew, Ronald Hopkins Harknett, the son of Erville M. Hall and her former husband Frederick J. Harknett, the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00).
'Third: I give and bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my property which shall be in the form of bank accounts in the Union Trust Company of Rochester, the Rochester Savings Bank, the Monroe County Savings Bank of Rochester, N.Y. and the Community Savings Bank of Rochester, N.Y., and in the form of stocks which I may die possessed to my nieces, Erville M. Hall, 88 Tuscan Road, Maplewood, N.J., Edith Frank, Dirk Court, Northport, Long Island, and Della Moeller, 56 Glenwood Avenue, Jersey City, N.J., and to my nephew William Le Roy Hall, 131 River Dirve, East Patterson, N.J., absolutely, share and share alike.
'Fourth: All the rest, residue and remainder of my property of whatever nature and wherever situate, I give and bequeath to my nephew, Ronald Hopkins Harknett.'
At the time of the execution of the will, on January 8, 1948, the testator resided and was domiciled in the City of Rochester, New York. On that date he had savings accounts in four banks in Rochester, New York, in amounts not stated in the record. After the execution of the will (the date is not fixed), he moved his residence and domicile from Rochester, New York, to Maplewood, New Jersey, where he died domiciled on July 12, 1957.
On August 9, 1955 the testator closed out his account in one Rochester bank in the amount of $1,325.50 and on August 24, 1955 deposited this draft in The Maplewood Bank and Trust Company, Maplewood, New Jersey, in his own name; on August 8, 1956 he closed out his accounts in each of two other Rochester banks in the amounts of $1,230.19 and $1,937.55, respectively, and after closing out his account on August 9, 1956 in the fourth Rochester bank in the amount of $1,350.54, he then, on August 10, 1956, deposited these three drafts which totalled $4,518.28 in the Maplewood Savings and Loan Association, Maplewood, New Jersey, in his own name. The parties agree that the total sum of $5,843.78 is traceable directly from the four banks in Rochester to the two depositaries in Maplewood.
It was additionally stipulated at the argument that the total value of the estate was about $15,350, most of which except the bank accounts here in question was in shares of stock; and that the testator left no widow or children him surviving.
It has been held that
Arenofsky v. Arenofsky, 29 N.J.Super. 209, 213, 102 A.2d 101, 103 (App.Div.1954); Wyckoff v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n, 37 N.J.Super. 274, 117 A.2d 162 (Ch.Div.1955). See Annotation, 16 A.L.R.2d 1404.
The precise question before us, then, is whether the intent of the testator was to so delimit and confine the subject matter of the specific bequests in the third paragraph of the will (bank accounts) that if the money therein should be transferred before his death to other depositaries purely for his own custodial convenience, as was obviously here the case, the bequest was therefore necessarily revoked because the money was no longer in 'the form of bank accounts' in the specific banks named in the will. Although the literal import of the verbiage in the will lends some support to that proposition, we think sound principles of construction call for a different conclusion in the present circumstances.
As was said by Judge (now Mr. Justice) Francis in the Arenofsky case, supra (29 N.J.Super. at page 216, 102 A.2d at page 105):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown's Estate, In re
...(1925) 208 Ky. 441, 271 S.W. 600, 63 A.L.R. 631; Warren v. Shoemaker (1965) 4 Ohio Misc. 15, 207 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio); In Re Estate of Hall (1960) 60 N.J.Super. 597, 160 A.2d 49; In Re Bliss' Estate (1962) 232 Or. 26, 374 P.2d 382, 383; Seifert et al. v. Kepner (1962) 227 Md. 517, 177 A.2d 859......
-
White v. White
... ... had been lost prior to testator's death there was an ademption so that the legatee was not entitled to the insurance proceeds paid to the estate on account of the loss. The basis of the decision was given by the court as follows: ... 'As indicated above, we deal with the problem of ademption ... ...
-
McGee v. McGee, 78-128-A
... ... McGee, and instructions relating to payment of debts and distribution of assets from the testatrix's estate. The sole issue presented by this appeal concerns the question of the ademption of an allegedly specific legacy to the grandchildren of the decedent ... ...
- In re Estate of Geary