Sullivan v. Burkin
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
390 Mass. 864, 460 N.E.2d 572 (1984)
- Written by Christine Raino, JD
Facts
Ernest G. Sullivan died with a will that specifically disinherited his wife, Mary A. Sullivan (plaintiff), and left the residue of his estate to the trustee of a revocable trust that he created during his lifetime. Ernest was the sole trustee, and had the right to revoke the trust as well as receive the net income and invade the principal during his lifetime. Upon Ernest’s death, the trust principal and income were to be paid to George F. Cronin, Sr. and Harold J. Cronin (defendants). The trust was executed before a notary public but was not witnessed as required for execution of a will. Mary elected to take her spousal share of Ernest’s probate estate under G.L. c. 191, §15 and brought an action seeking to include the assets of Ernest’s revocable trust in the probate estate from which she would take her spousal share. To reach the trust assets, Mary claimed that the trust was an ineffective testamentary disposition for failure to comply with the requirements of the statute of wills and therefore its assets must pass by intestacy through the probate estate. The Suffolk County Probate Court dismissed Mary’s claim and Mary appealed to the Appeals Court, which reported the case to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.
