Becraft v. Becraft
Alabama Supreme Court
628 So. 2d 404 (1993)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Lowell Becraft Sr. (Dr. Becraft) was married twice. Dr. Becraft’s first wife, with whom he had four children, predeceased him. Dr. Becraft was then married to Elizabeth Becraft (plaintiff) until his death. Dr. Becraft made Elizabeth a beneficiary to a $25,000 life-insurance policy, but he did not modify the will he executed before marrying Elizabeth, which did not mention Elizabeth. Following Dr. Becraft’s death, Elizabeth filed a petition seeking an omitted spouse’s share of Dr. Becraft’s estate. Charles Becraft (defendant), as executor of Dr. Becraft’s estate, opposed the petition. Three of Dr. Becraft’s children—including his son, Larry Becraft, who was an attorney—testified that Dr. Becraft had said many times that his entire estate would go to his children. Elizabeth testified to the contrary. The trial court granted Elizabeth’s petition. In so holding, the trial court reasoned that Dr. Becraft was a well-educated man with an attorney as a son, so if Dr. Becraft had intended to disinherit Elizabeth, he would have done so by executing a codicil or a prenuptial agreement. The trial court also noted that the $25,000 life-insurance proceeds were less than what Elizabeth would have received under intestate succession. The executor appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Almon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.