LaCroix v. Senecal
99 A.2d 115 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, if a testator revokes a provision in a will with the present intention of making a new, substitute provision, and the new provision fails for any reason, it is presumed the testator would have preferred the original provision to intestacy. Therefore, the revocation is deemed ineffective unless there is evidence to overcome this presumption.
Facts:
- On March 26, 1951, Celestine L. Dupre executed a will.
- Item five of the will bequeathed one-half of her residuary estate to her nephew, Nelson Lamoth, and the other half to Aurea Seneeal.
- On April 10, 1951, Dupre executed a codicil to her will.
- The codicil's first item revoked the original item five and replaced it with a new item five, which was identical except for clarifying the nephew's full name as 'Marcisse Lamoth... also known as Nelson Lamoth.'
- The codicil also contained a clause republishing and confirming the original will in all other respects.
- Adolphe Seneeal, the husband of beneficiary Aurea Seneeal, served as one of the three subscribing witnesses to the codicil.
- A Connecticut statute voids any bequest given in a will or codicil to the spouse of a subscribing witness.
- Dupre died on April 19, 1951, and her sole heir was her niece, the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, the testatrix's niece and heir, brought an action for a declaratory judgment in a court of first instance.
- The plaintiff sought a decree that the gift to Aurea Seneeal was void and that half of the residuary estate should pass to her through intestacy.
- The trial court held that the residuary bequest to Aurea Seneeal in the codicil was void due to the interested witness statute.
- The trial court further held that the doctrine of dependent relative revocation applied, making the original gift to Aurea Seneeal in the will valid.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision to the state's highest court.
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 the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply to validate a gift in a will when the codicil that purports to revoke that gift is itself ineffective as to the same gift due to a statutory violation?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, C. J.
Yes, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation applies to validate the original gift. The doctrine operates on the presumption that a revocation is conditional upon the validity of a new, substituted disposition. Here, the testatrix's sole purpose in executing the codicil was to clarify her nephew's name, not to alter the substance of the bequests. The revocation of the original item five was 'indissolubly coupled' with the creation of the nearly identical substitute provision. Since the substitute gift to Aurea Seneeal was void under the interested witness statute, the condition for the revocation—the effectiveness of the new gift—was not met. Therefore, the revocation itself fails, and the original gift to Aurea Seneeal under the will remains in effect. Applying the doctrine does not subvert the purpose of the interested witness statute, as there is no evidence of the scheming or undue influence the statute was designed to prevent.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of dependent relative revocation within Connecticut jurisprudence as a rule of presumed intent designed to effectuate a testator's wishes. The decision establishes that the doctrine can overcome the effect of a statute that would otherwise void a gift, such as an interested witness statute, if the testator's intent is clear. It shows that courts will look past a technical failure in a testamentary document to uphold the underlying dispositive scheme, especially when a later instrument merely reaffirms the plan of a prior one. This reinforces the principle that testamentary intent is paramount and that revocation is not always absolute, but can be conditional.
Unlock the full brief for LaCroix v. Senecal