In re Estate of Clark
New York Court of Appeals
21 N.Y.2d 478, 288 N.Y.S.2d 993, 236 N.E.2d 152 (1968)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Robert V. Clark and his wife were both domiciled in Virginia when Robert died. Robert’s estate was valued at more than $23,000,000 and consisted of property in Virginia and New York, the bulk of which was securities on deposit with a New York bank. Robert’s will provided that it and the testamentary dispositions and trusts in it should be governed by New York law. Robert’s will also provided that his widow should get the couple’s Virginia house and its contents and lifetime proceeds from a trust with a general testamentary power of appointment over the principal for the trust, with the residue of the estate, after taxes, going to Robert’s mother. The testamentary trust cut off Robert’s widow’s right of election to take against the will that was provided to a surviving spouse under Virginia law, which was the law of the couple’s domicile. Executors filed an action in the surrogate’s court and alleged that Robert’s testamentary dispositions should be construed according to New York law. The surrogate ruled against the widow, and the appellate court reversed and held that the widow’s right to take against the will must be determined by the law of the couple’s domicile. The executors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fuld, C.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.
