YIVO Institute for Jewish Research v. Zaleski
2005 Md. LEXIS 255, 874 A2d 411, 386 Md. 654 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Maryland law, the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction does not require a contemporaneous writing to prove a testator's intent; extrinsic and parol evidence is admissible to show that an inter vivos gift was intended to satisfy a legacy.
Facts:
- In 1992, Dr. Jan Karski entered into a letter agreement with the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research ('YIVO'), pledging to establish a $100,000 endowment fund, to be funded either by a gift in his will or by cash and/or marketable securities during his lifetime.
- On October 25, 1993, Dr. Karski executed a will that included a bequest to YIVO of all his shares of Northern States Power stock, which were valued at approximately $100,000 at the time.
- Between November 1995 and January 1996, Dr. Karski made a series of inter vivos gifts to YIVO consisting of different utility stocks.
- On February 7, 1996, Dr. Karski made a final cash gift of $2.31 to YIVO, bringing the total value of his lifetime gifts to the organization to exactly $100,000.
- Dr. Karski did not amend his will to remove the bequest to YIVO after making the lifetime gifts.
- Dr. Karski died on July 12, 2000, and the Northern States Power shares bequeathed to YIVO remained an asset of his estate.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative of Dr. Karski's estate, Paul Zaleski, denied YIVO's request for the bequest of Northern States Power stock.
- YIVO filed a Petition for Order Directing Distribution of Specific Bequest in the Orphans’ Court for Montgomery County.
- The Orphans’ Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Dr. Karski's lifetime gifts satisfied the legacy, denying YIVO's petition.
- YIVO, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Orphans’ Court.
- YIVO petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Maryland law, does the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction require a contemporaneous writing by the testator to prove that an inter vivos gift was intended to satisfy a legacy in their will?
Opinions:
Majority - Greene, J.
No. The doctrine of ademption by satisfaction does not require a contemporaneous writing, as the testator's intent is the paramount consideration and may be proven by extrinsic evidence. Maryland common law holds that a legacy is adeemed when a testator makes a lifetime gift to a legatee with the intention of satisfying that legacy. The court declined to adopt the modern trend, reflected in the Uniform Probate Code and the Restatement (Third) of Property, which requires a writing to prove such intent. Instead, the court reaffirmed its long-standing rule that if a testator gives a legacy for a specific purpose and subsequently accomplishes that purpose themselves through an inter vivos gift, the legacy is presumed to be adeemed. Here, the court found the purpose of both the bequest and the lifetime gifts was to fulfill Dr. Karski's $100,000 pledge. Because the gifts and the bequest served the same purpose and were not substantially different in kind (marketable securities being treated as equivalent to cash), a presumption of ademption arose, which YIVO failed to rebut. The court also held that parol evidence, including Dr. Karski's later oral statements to a friend, was admissible to demonstrate his intent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Maryland's adherence to the traditional, intent-focused common law doctrine of ademption by satisfaction, deliberately rejecting the modern trend toward requiring written evidence. By prioritizing the testator's intent above formal requirements, the court preserves flexibility but also potential for litigation, as determining intent can be a fact-intensive inquiry relying on extrinsic and sometimes-unreliable parol evidence. The ruling affirms that in Maryland, a legatee's claim can be defeated by evidence of the testator's words and actions, even if the will itself is never updated. This contrasts sharply with jurisdictions that have adopted the Uniform Probate Code to promote certainty and reduce litigation over donative intent.
