In re the Estate of Beu
333 N.Y.S.2d 858, 70 Misc. 2d 396, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1757 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) § 1-2.18, a clause in a will that explicitly and unambiguously disinherits a distributee is effective to bar that person from sharing in any part of the decedent's estate, including property that passes by intestacy. For distribution purposes, the disinherited person is treated as if they predeceased the testator.
Facts:
- A testatrix created a will before her death.
- The will's fourth paragraph bequeathed the sum of five dollars to her daughter, Elenor Clarke.
- This paragraph stated that the provision was intended to be 'in lieu and bar of every right and interest in and to my estate.'
- The will explained the limited provision was due to Clarke being 'disobedient and ungrateful' throughout her adult life.
- The will lacked a residuary clause, failing to dispose of the remainder of the estate, including the decedent's real property.
- The decedent's only legal distributees (heirs) were her son, Rudolph Beu, and her daughter, Elenor Clarke.
Procedural Posture:
- The executor of the decedent's estate, Rudolph Beu, filed a petition in the Surrogate's Court of Rockland County, a court of first instance for probate matters, seeking a judicial construction of the will.
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 clause in a will explicitly disinheriting a direct heir from every right and interest in the estate prevent that heir from taking a share of the testator's property that passes through intestacy under New York EPTL § 1-2.18?
Opinions:
Majority - John F. Skahen, S.
Yes. A will clause that clearly disinherits an heir is effective to prevent them from taking any intestate property. The court reasoned that while the prior common law rule required a valid gift of property to someone else to disinherit an heir, the new EPTL § 1-2.18 explicitly allows a will to direct how property 'shall not be disposed of.' The language in the testatrix's will was found to be unmistakably strong, expressing a clear intent to completely bar her daughter, Elenor Clarke, from the estate beyond the five-dollar bequest. To resolve the subsequent distribution question, the court established the legal fiction that a disinherited person should be treated as having predeceased the testator. This allows the disinherited person's share to pass per stirpes to their issue (Clarke's children), preventing an unjust outcome where the entire intestate estate would go to the other heir (Rudolph Beu) or escheat to the state.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the significant shift in New York law effectuated by EPTL § 1-2.18, empowering testators with the ability to disinherit heirs through negative direction alone, without needing to make a corresponding affirmative gift. It moves away from the old common law formalism that protected heirs-at-law from disinheritance by omission. The court's novel holding that a disinherited person is treated as having predeceased the testator creates a crucial judicial gloss on the statute, providing a practical framework for distributing property that prevents the disinheritance of one heir from creating a windfall for other heirs and preserves the statutory scheme of per stirpes distribution.
