In re Estate of Stroble
Kansas Court of Appeals
636 P.2d 236, 6 Kan. App. 2d 955 (1981)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Patricia J. Stroble was married to Charles R. Stroble (plaintiff). In 1975, a few years before Patricia’s death, Patricia moved her mother, Mary E. Klingele, into the home she shared with Charles. As a result, Charles moved out, and Charles and Patricia separated. Patricia executed a will in March 1978 giving all of her estate to Mary, provided Mary survived Patricia by 30 days. Charles was expressly excluded from the will. The will did not contain a residuary clause. In November 1978, Mary and Patricia died from asphyxiation and carbon-monoxide poisoning in their home after Patricia left her car running in an attached garage. There was no evidence to determine the sequence of their deaths. Mary’s heirs, John Robert Klingele, Pamela L. Golubski, Phillip Wayne Klingele, Sandra L. Clark, and Eugene Klingele (collectively, Mary’s heirs) (defendants) filed the will for probate. Charles filed an election to take half of Patricia’s estate via intestate succession as her surviving spouse. Under Kansas’s intestate-succession laws, a surviving spouse inherited the decedent’s entire estate. Mary’s heirs argued that the will was valid and the Kansas antilapse statute should apply. The trial court held that the will was effective as to one-half of the estate, giving each of Mary’s five heirs one-tenth of Patricia’s estate and awarding Charles one-half of Patricia’s estate pursuant to intestate succession. Mary’s heirs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prager, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.