Gilbert v. Gilbert
Kentucky Court of Appeals
652 S.W.2d 663 (1983)
Facts
When Frank Gilbert died in 1979, his brother James submitted three writings to probate. First was an eight-page typewritten will prepared by an attorney that Frank signed three years earlier. Second and third were a business card and a paystub with handwriting on the backs, folded together in a sealed envelope on which Frank wrote, “This day 12/8/1978 I gave to Jim and Margaret this card which I Stated what to do.” On the business card, Frank wrote, “12/8/1978 Jim and Margaret I have appro $50,000 in Safe. See Buzz if anything happens,” and signed it. Frank kept his money in a safe at work. On the paystub, Frank wrote, “Jim & Margaret $20,000 the Rest divided Equally the other Living Survivors Bro. and Sisters,” and signed it. The court admitted all three into probate with the handwritten items admitted as a codicil, meaning James would take both his share under the typewritten will and half of $20,000 from the safe. Frank’s other siblings (plaintiffs) brought a will-contest action against James and other beneficiaries (defendants) arguing the handwritten items were a second will superseding the first, eliminating James from sharing in Frank’s estate except for the $20,000. The court construed the handwritten items as a codicil that affected only the money Frank kept in the safe, not a superseding will. The other siblings appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Paxton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
