In re Estate of Clark, 21 N.Y.2d 478 (1968)
A testator’s designation of New York law to govern their testamentary dispositions does not override the surviving spouse’s right of election under the law of the domicile.
Summary
This case addresses whether a testator domiciled in Virginia can, by selecting New York law to govern his will, prevent his widow from exercising her right to renounce the will and take her intestate share under Virginia law. The testator, Robert Clark, died domiciled in Virginia, leaving a will stating that New York law should govern its interpretation. His widow elected to take against the will, seeking her statutory share under Virginia law, which was more favorable than the will’s provisions. The New York Court of Appeals held that the widow’s right of election is governed by the law of the domicile (Virginia), not by the law selected by the testator (New York), as the right of election is not a “testamentary disposition.”
Facts
Robert V. Clark, Jr., a Virginia domiciliary, died owning property in both Virginia and New York. His will specified that it should be construed and regulated by New York law. The will devised the Virginia residence and contents to his widow and created a marital deduction trust for her benefit. The residue was placed in trust for his mother. Under Virginia law, the widow had an absolute right to renounce the will and take one-half of the estate outright, which was more valuable than what she would receive under the will’s trust provisions.
Procedural History
The New York executors initiated a special proceeding in Surrogate’s Court to deny the widow’s right of election, arguing that the will barred her from recourse to Virginia law and that New York law provided sufficient benefits. The Surrogate’s Court upheld the executors’ position. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the widow’s right to take against the will was governed by Virginia law. The New York Court of Appeals then heard the case.
Issue(s)
Whether a testator, domiciled in a foreign state, can defeat or diminish the surviving spouse’s right of election under the law of their domicile by designating New York law to govern his testamentary dispositions?
Holding
No, because the right of election is not a “testamentary disposition” as contemplated by Decedent Estate Law § 47 (now EPTL 3-5.1(h)), and the law of the domicile (Virginia) governs the spousal right of election.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that section 47 of the Decedent Estate Law, which allows a testator to choose New York law to govern “testamentary dispositions,” does not apply to a spouse’s right of election. The right of election is a statutory right that exists outside of and in contravention to the will’s provisions. The court emphasized the difference between statutes concerning restrictions on testamentary power and those focused on discerning the testator’s wishes. “Unlike the expressions of intent which constitute testamentary dispositions, the right of election, both in Virginia and New York, is statutory in nature and exists wholly outside of, and in direct contravention to, the provisions of a will.” The court further noted Virginia’s dominant interest in protecting the rights of its domiciliaries. The court distinguished cases like Wyatt v. Fulrath and Hutchison v. Ross, which involved inter vivos transactions. It emphasized that testamentary dispositions are generally governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile. While the testator can choose New York law to govern the interpretation of the will, he cannot use that choice to deprive his spouse of rights granted by the law of their domicile. The court emphasized, “Virginia’s overwhelming interest in the protection of surviving spouses domiciled there demands that we apply its law to give the widow in this case the right of election provided for her under that law.”