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

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

Alicia Erickson (P) who is the daughter of Ronald, now deceased, appealed from a judgment of the trial court in favor of Dorothy Erickson (D). The probate court admitted Ronald's will to probate. The trial court ruled that Ronald's will which had been executed shortly before marriage to D provided for the contingency of marriage. Ronald executed a will when he had three daughters and was unmarried. Two days later he married D. Ronald died eight years later. Prior to the admission of the will to probate, P filed a motion in limine to exclude extrinsic evidence of Ronald's intent on the issue of whether the will would be revoked by the marriage. D offered proof to show a contrary intent; that proof was not admitted at trial. The trial court affirmed the probate court decision that the will took into contingency a new marriage in that the will bequeathed all of his estate to the woman he was to marry in two days, named her executrix, and designated her the guardian of his daughters, whose mother had previously died. This constitutes clear and convincing evidence of provision for the contingency of marriage. It would be absurd to conclude that Ronald was executing a will to make provisions that would be revoked just two days later. The trial court affirmed the probate court ruling and denied P's appeal.

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

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