Hall v. Jones (In re Estate of Jones)
Florida District Court of Appeal
472 So. 2d 1299 (1985)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Walter Jones, decedent, executed a will containing 11 specific devises and one residuary devise. Karen Hall (plaintiff) received a specific devise granting her the equitable interest and income from Jones’s former house in Lake of the Woods, Virginia. Jones had sold the house shortly before executing his will and entered into a deed of trust with the buyer pursuant to which he expected to receive a total of $42,000 in 120 equal monthly installments. This series of 120 installments represented the equitable interest and income in Hall’s specific devise. However, approximately five months after the will was executed, the house buyer prepaid the entire $42,000, the entirety of which Jones then placed in a money-market account. Jones did not alter his will following the prepayment of the deed of trust. Following Jones’s death, Hall argued that her devise was still valid because it was a demonstrative devise, not a specific devise, and therefore was not eligible for ademption and could be satisfied out of the estate’s general assets even though the 120 installments had been prepaid. The trial court rejected Hall’s request to introduce evidence of Jones’s testamentary intent and held that (1) the devise was a specific devise, and (2) it adeemed because the deed of trust no longer existed. Hall appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Campbell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
