In re Estate of Schumacher
Colorado Court of Appeals
253 P.3d 1280 (2011)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
In 2004, David Schumacher executed a holographic will granting shares of stock to his three cousins, Maria Caldwell (plaintiff), Cheryl Smart (plaintiff), and Deborah Caldwell (defendant). In 2006, Schumacher went to an attorney to create a typed will. Schumacher gave the attorney a copy of his holographic will, which had the names of Maria and Cheryl crossed out. Schumacher told the attorney that he no longer wanted to grant stock to Maria and Cheryl and asked the attorney to prepare a typed will that contained the exact provisions of his holographic will except for the devises to Maria and Cheryl. The attorney prepared a typed will, but Schumacher died before signing it. Prior to his death, Schumacher had given several boxes of his personal effects to his secretary, instructing her to store them in her garage and sort them out. After Schumacher’s death, his secretary, her sister, and his personal representative discovered the original holographic will in one of the boxes. Schumacher’s personal representative filed a petition for determination of the validity of the holographic will. Maria and Cheryl filed a petition for construction of the will, asking the probate court to determine whether the strikethroughs on the will were valid. The probate court found that the strikethroughs partially revoked the will, cancelling the bequests of stock to Maria and Cheryl. Maria and Cheryl appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marquez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.