Garrett v. Read
Kansas Supreme Court
102 P.3d 436 (2004)
Sarah and John were married. Each had children from before the marriage. One of Sarah’s children, Gary, predeceased Sarah, leaving children of his own. In 1984, Sarah and John executed nearly identical wills, leaving all of their property to the survivor, and, after the survivor’s death, to both of their children in equal shares, with Gary’s share going to his children. John died. In 1993, Sarah executed a new will, which revoked her 1984 will, and directed that her estate be divided equally between her children, with nothing going to John’s children. Following Sarah’s death, John’s children (plaintiffs) filed suit, and Gary’s children (third-party plaintiffs) intervened, alleging that Sarah’s 1993 was ineffective to alter the bequests in the 1984 wills because Sarah and John’s 1984 wills were contractual. The attorney who drafted the 1984 wills testified that Sarah and John wanted to execute contractual wills, wanted their property to be divided equally between both of their children, and wanted to prevent the surviving spouse from changing the shares to the deceased spouse’s children, but wanted the surviving spouse to have the right to alter the shares to his or her own children. The district court admitted the attorney’s testimony regarding the agreement between Sarah and John. The district court held that the 1984 wills were contractual and that Sarah’s 1993 will was therefore ineffective to alter the shares to John’s children, although she could alter the shares for her own children. The district court imposed a constructive trust on the estate in favor of John’s children, in the amount they would have received under the 1984 wills. Sarah’s children and Gary’s children appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Beier, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 159,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,700 briefs, keyed to 186 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.