In re Koch's Estate
Decision Date | 16 April 1940 |
Citation | 282 N.Y. 462,27 N.E.2d 10 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re KOCH'S ESTATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Proceedings in the matter of the application of Louise Zuber, for a determination as to the validity, construction, or effect of disposition of property contained in the will and testament of Katharine Koch, also known as Catharine Koch, deceased. A decree construing the will was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 258 App.Div. 843, 15 N.Y.S.2d 667, and Alida Koch appeals by permission granted in 258 App.Div. 1030, 17 N.Y.S.2d 886.
Order of Appellate Division and decree of Surrogate's Court reversed and matter remitted to Surrogate's Court with directions.
Glenn W. Woodin, of Dunkirk, for appellant.
William J. Driscoll and Marvin G. Schwert, both of Buffalo, for respondent.
The testatrix, Katharine Koch, executed her will on May 27, 1916. She gave, devised and bequeathed all her property, both real and personal, to her children, naming them, share and share alike. She then provided: ‘In case of the death of any of the above named children, I give, devise and bequeath his or her share to his or her heirs.’ Frank J. Koch was one of the children. He predeceased testatrix on December 13, 1929, leaving no issue. He was survived by his widow, Alida Koch, the appellant. At the time of the execution of the will Alida Koch was neither heir at law or next of kin of Frank J. Koch. Tillman v. Davis, 95 N.Y. 17, 47 Am.Rep. 1;Murdock v. Ward, 67 N.Y. 387;Platt v. Mickle, 137 N.Y. 106, 32 N.E. 1070. The Appellate Division decided that she was not entitled to take her husband's share of the estate, on the authority of Matter of Waring's Will, 275 N.Y. 6, 9 N.E.2d 754. Subsequent to that decision the Decedent Estate Law (Consol.Laws, ch. 13) was amended by adding section 47-c, which became effective March 28, 1938. That section provides: ‘When used in a statute, in a will or in any other written instrument prescribing the devolution of property rights and unless the statute, the will or the instrument shall expressly or impliedly declare otherwise the terms ‘heirs,’ ‘heirs at law,’ ‘next of kin’ and ‘distributees' and any terms of like import shall be deemed and shall be construed to mean the distributees, including a surviving spouse, who are defined in section eighty-three of Decedent Estate Law.’ In connection with that legislation there appears the following note of the Commission: (McKinney's Consol.Laws, Book 13, p. 274.)
The testatrix died December 19, 1938, subsequent to the enactment of section 47-c of Decedent Estate Law. We, thus, have a clear indication of legislative intent that the surviving spouse is to be deemed an heir at law and next of kin, at least from the effective date of section 47-c...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weller's Will, In re
...is also entitled to share in the remainder as being among her legal distributees. See, Matter of Waring's Will, supra; Matter of Koch's Estate, 282 N.Y. 462, 27 N.E.2d 10; Matter of Bates' Will, 173 Misc. 703, 19 N.Y.S.2d 64; Matter of Maine's Accounting, supra. It is unnecessary, however, ......
-
Rawls v. Rideout
... ... Hassett, Blanche V. Whitehead, J.T. Vaughan and ... Charles N. Vaughan ... Alma Ruth V. RIDEOUT, J. Guy Revelle, Jr., Executor of the ... Estate of Jessie Mae V. Harrison, Robert A. Parker ... and Margaret Lee Parker ... No. 846SC295 ... Court of Appeals of North Carolina ... May 7, 1985 ... ...
-
In re Burk's Will
...wife. It was not until then that the remainder vested Matter of Bostwick's Will, 236 N.Y. 242, 140 N.E. 576, supra; Matter of Koch's Estate, 282 N.Y. 462, 27 N.E.2d 10;Matter of Pulis, 220 N.Y. 196, 115 N.E.516; Real Property Law, s 40, Consol. Laws, c. 50. Members of the class at the time ......
-
Tuttle v. Humphrey (In re Battell's Will)
...by statute and it must be assumed that the (testator) knew that those lines could be changed at any time.’ Matter of Koch's Estate, 282 N.Y. 462, 465, 27 N.E.2d 10, 11; Gilliam v. Guaranty Trust Co., 186 N.Y. 127, 138, 78 N.E. 697,116 Am.St.Rep. 536. The language which we are now construing......