Lexplug logoLexplug

Clymer v. Mayo

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex
393 Mass. 754, 473 N.E.2d 1084 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute that revokes any disposition of property made by a will to a former spouse upon divorce also revokes that spouse's beneficial interest in a revocable pour-over trust that is funded at the testator's death as part of a single, integrated testamentary scheme.


Facts:

  • In 1973, Clara A. Mayo executed a will and a corresponding revocable inter vivos trust as part of a comprehensive estate plan.
  • The will designated Clara's husband, James P. Mayo, Jr., as the recipient of her personal property, with the remainder of her estate designated to 'pour over' into the trust upon her death.
  • The trust named James Mayo as the primary lifetime beneficiary of its assets.
  • The trust was never funded during Clara Mayo's lifetime; its assets were to come from her will and the proceeds of her annuity contracts upon her death.
  • In 1977, Clara and James Mayo began divorce proceedings, which were finalized in January 1978.
  • The divorce settlement included a waiver by James of any interest in Clara's securities, savings, and retirement funds.
  • Clara Mayo died in 1981 without having amended her will or trust to remove James Mayo as a beneficiary.
  • James Mayo remarried in August 1978 and executed a new will in favor of his new wife.

Procedural Posture:

  • The administrator of Clara Mayo's estate petitioned the Probate and Family Court for instructions regarding the effect of the decedent's divorce on her estate plan.
  • The decedent's parents (the Weisses) filed a complaint in the same court for a declaratory judgment that the divorce revoked all dispositions to the former husband, James Mayo, in both the will and the trust.
  • The cases were consolidated for trial in the Probate and Family Court.
  • The Probate Court judge ruled that the divorce revoked James Mayo's interest in the will and in one part of the trust (Trust A), but did not revoke his lifetime beneficial interest in the main part of the trust (Trust B).
  • The Weisses, James Mayo, and other beneficiaries appealed the judgment of the Probate and Family Court to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state statute that revokes testamentary dispositions to a former spouse upon divorce also revoke that spouse's beneficial interest in a revocable, unfunded inter vivos trust intended to be funded at death by a pour-over from the will?


Opinions:

Majority - Hennessey, C.J.

Yes. A state statute revoking testamentary dispositions to a former spouse upon divorce also revokes that spouse's beneficial interest in a revocable pour-over trust that is an integral part of a unified testamentary scheme. The court reasoned that the decedent's will and trust were created at the same time and were integrally related components of a single plan for disposing of her property at death. The trust had no practical significance until her death, as it was unfunded and revocable. The legislative intent behind the divorce-revocation statute (G. L. c. 191, § 9) is to reflect a testator's presumed intent to disinherit a former spouse. It would be incongruous to apply this statutory presumption to the will but not to the pour-over trust, as doing so would defeat the testator's implied intent and create inconsistent results. Therefore, the court extended the statute's effect to the trust to ensure the decedent's comprehensive estate plan was treated as an interrelated whole.



Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the reach of divorce-revocation statutes, applying them not just to wills but also to will substitutes like revocable trusts that are part of an integrated estate plan. It signals a shift from a formalistic view of separate legal documents to a more functional approach that treats a decedent's entire testamentary scheme as a single, cohesive plan. By doing so, the court aligned legal doctrine with modern estate planning practices where pour-over wills and revocable trusts are commonly used together. This case establishes a precedent for interpreting the 'subsidiary law of wills'—such as rules of construction and revocation—to apply to non-probate transfers that function like a will.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Clymer v. Mayo (1985) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Clymer v. Mayo