In re the Estate of Winfield
1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3918, 172 N.Y.S.2d 27, 11 Misc.2d 149 (1958)
Rule of Law:
A specific bequest of personal property is not adeemed by a mere change in the form or name of the property, provided its essence, nature, and quality remain substantially the same and there is no declared intent to revoke the gift.
Facts:
- Mrs. Winfield executed her will, which included a bequest in Article Fourth of 'my mink coat' to Elizabeth Langford, conditioned on Langford surviving her.
- The will also bequeathed 'all the rest of my furs' to Mrs. Winfield's friend, Alice Walker Huffman.
- Subsequent to executing her will but prior to her death, Mrs. Winfield caused the mink coat, the subject of the gift to Mrs. Langford, to be converted into a stole.
- The conversion involved discarding some of the coat's skins but did not require the substitution of new skins for old.
- Elizabeth Langford survived Mrs. Winfield but has since died, making her estate the beneficiary.
- Alice Walker Huffman was still alive and was to receive the remainder of the furs.
Procedural Posture:
- The executor initiated a proceeding in Surrogate's Court for the settlement of the executor's account.
- In the course of this proceeding, a construction of Article Fourth of Mrs. Winfield's will was required to determine whether the specific legacy of a mink coat to Elizabeth Langford had adeemed.
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 an alteration of a specific testamentary gift, such as converting a mink coat into a stole, adeem the legacy if the alteration merely changes the form and name but not the essential nature or substance of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - S. Samuel Di Falco, S.
No, an alteration of a specific testamentary gift, such as converting a mink coat into a stole, does not adeem the legacy if the alteration merely changes the form and name but not the essential nature or substance of the property. The court held that converting a mink coat into a stole, even with some skins discarded, does not fundamentally change its essence, nature, or quality as a fur garment. The alteration did not involve the substitution of new skins for old, but only the abandonment of badly worn ones. The court cited Section 39 of the Decedent Estate Law, which provides that an alteration to previously bequeathed property, if not 'wholly digested,' does not revoke the bequest unless an intent to revoke is declared in the instrument. This aligns with established principles that a change merely in the form and name of a gift does not work an ademption (citing Matter of Brann, Havens v. Havens, Matter of Henderson). The court reasoned that a contrary rule would lead to absurd results, as even minor repairs to bequeathed property would cause ademption. Therefore, the stole passes to Mrs. Langford's estate.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarity on the doctrine of ademption, particularly regarding specific bequests of tangible personal property. It establishes that minor alterations, which change only the form or name of an item without fundamentally altering its essential nature, do not cause the bequest to fail. By applying Decedent Estate Law § 39 and existing precedents, the court reinforces the principle that ademption requires a more substantial transformation or obliteration of the gift, or a clear intent to revoke. This ruling is significant for future cases as it guides courts in distinguishing between cosmetic or structural changes and substantive transformations, ensuring that a testator's intent is honored despite post-will alterations to bequeathed items.
