The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Decedent executed a will leaving all her personal property to her husband, Mayo (D). The will contained a pour-over provision, whereby the residue of her estate was to go into an inter vivos trust she created at the same time. The trust estate was divided into two parts: trust A, a 'marital deduction trust, which was to be funded with 50% of decedent's Adjusted Gross Estate. Mayo was the beneficiary of Trust A. Trust B provided for the payment of five specific bequests. The remaining assets were to be held for the benefit of D during his life, then to the nephews and nieces of decedent until they reached the age of thirty. The trusts were not funded at the time they were created: their assets were to consist of decedent's life insurance proceeds and retirement annuity. Decedent and D divorced. Under their property settlement, D waived his rights to decedent's 'securities, savings accounts, savings certificates, and retirement fund'. Upon decedent's death, the court-appointed administrator of her estate petitioned for instructions regarding the effect of the divorce on the dispositions provided in decedent's estate plan. The lower court found 1)the trusts were valid despite the fact that they were not funded at the time of creation; 2) that D was not entitled to take under Trust A because it was created for Estate Tax purposes; 3) that D was entitled to take under trust B because the purpose of the trust was to create a life estate in him and because the law regarding revocation of bequests to a former spouse applied only to testamentary dispositions; and 4)that the nieces and nephews, who were relatives of D, were entitled to take under trust B because they were intended beneficiaries.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.