In re Estate of Hollister, 18 N.Y.2d 281 (1966)
A separation agreement in which spouses waive rights to each other’s estates can operate as a revocation of a prior will’s provisions if the agreement’s terms are wholly inconsistent with the will’s terms.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a separation agreement, incorporated into a subsequent Alabama divorce decree, revoked a prior will that bequeathed the entire estate to the now ex-husband. The court held that the separation agreement, wherein both parties waived rights to each other’s estates, effectively revoked the will’s provisions benefiting the husband. The court reasoned that the agreement’s terms were wholly inconsistent with the prior testamentary gifts, thus triggering a revocation under New York law. This decision clarifies how separation agreements interact with existing wills and highlights the importance of updating estate plans after separation or divorce.
Facts
The testatrix executed a will in 1945, leaving her entire estate to her husband. In 1954, the testatrix and her husband entered into a separation agreement, waiving rights to each other’s estates. The separation agreement included a specific waiver by the husband of any right to take against her will. In 1955, the testatrix obtained an Alabama divorce, with the divorce decree incorporating the separation agreement. The testatrix died in 1962 without creating a new will.
Procedural History
The husband offered the 1945 will for probate. The testatrix’s mother challenged the husband’s status and sought to construe the will in light of the separation agreement, cross-petitioning for letters c.t.a. The mother moved for summary judgment. The Surrogate Court held that the separation agreement revoked the bequest and devise to the husband, and revoked his appointment as executor. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision without opinion.
Issue(s)
Whether a separation agreement, where spouses waive rights to each other’s estates, operates as a revocation of a prior will’s provisions that benefited the other spouse, under New York law.
Holding
Yes, because the separation agreement’s terms were wholly inconsistent with the testamentary gifts to the husband, thus resulting in a revocation under New York law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, relying on New York law, specifically Section 40 of the Decedent Estate Law (now EPTL 5-1.4), and case law such as Titus v. Bassi, 182 App. Div. 387 (1918). The court clarified that while Section 34 of the Decedent Estate Law (now EPTL 3-4.1) prescribes specific methods for revoking wills, Section 40 modifies Section 34 to the extent that bequests are revoked by provisions in a separation agreement when those provisions