Estate Planning

n Brengle v. Tucker (1911), the Maryland court held that a will is invalid if it does not meet the strict requirement of two witness signatures, even if the testator’s intent is clear. The court refused to allow any exceptions to this rule, emphasizing that certain formalities in estate law are absolute. As a result, the decedent was treated as having died intestate, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with will execution requirements.

In Gross v. Burneston (1900), the Maryland court clarified that a will’s attestation requirement can be satisfied without the testatrix giving direct verbal instruction to witnesses, as long as the witnesses understand the will’s purpose and sign voluntarily. The court emphasized that only legally relevant issues arising from the pleadings should be considered, rejecting attempts to introduce extraneous claims.

A codicil is a formal amendment to an existing, enforceable will and is typically used for minor changes, such as updating beneficiaries or assets. In Maryland, codicils must clearly identify the items being replaced and the new instructions to avoid ambiguity and potential legal challenges. Because drafting an enforceable codicil requires precision and knowledge of estate law, retaining a skilled estate planning attorney is highly recommended.

Wills in Maryland are not static documents and can be amended through formal changes, provided strict legal procedures are followed. Amendments must clearly identify the original provisions being changed, include precise replacement language, and be properly signed and witnessed by at least two disinterested parties. Failure to meet these requirements—such as ambiguity or missing signatures—can render the amendment unenforceable.

For Marylanders creating or updating a will in 2026, four key issues are critical to avoid challenges: eliminate any ambiguity in all sections, ensure all pages and documents are properly affixed together, clearly identify all family members and beneficiaries, and have all signatures witnessed by required parties. Ambiguities, unattached pages, unclear beneficiary information, or improperly witnessed signatures can all provide grounds for costly and time-consuming challenges. Careful attention to these details helps ensure that a will is enforceable and minimizes the risk of litigation.

When someone assumes the role of a trustee, they take on fiduciary duties that must be carefully performed, with potential liability for any failures. In Fisher v. Ward (2015), trustees appointed to oversee a foreclosure auction were absent during the sale, raising questions about whether this procedural defect invalidated the sale or caused damages. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that the trustees’ absence did not prejudice the transaction, confirming that while trustee obligations are serious, the consequences of breaches depend on context.

Wills are often challenged by interested parties, particularly when significant assets are involved. Common grounds for challenge include invalid signatures, improper witnessing, unclear identification of beneficiaries, and ambiguous language. Careful drafting and strict compliance with Maryland’s technical requirements are essential to reduce the risk of disputes and litigation.

The case of Shane v. Wooley (1921) demonstrates how minor technical errors can invalidate an entire will under Maryland law. Improper placement or lack of connection between a will and its attestation clause may render the document legally insufficient. The decision underscores the importance of careful drafting and familiarity with foundational Maryland estate law to prevent future challenges.

The Estate of Schappell (2024) case explores Maryland’s approach to equitable adoption, a doctrine allowing stepchildren to be treated as heirs despite no formal adoption. The case centers on a stepdaughter’s claim that her late stepfather intended to treat her as his natural child for inheritance purposes. Maryland courts continue to assess such cases based on fairness and the genuine parent-child bond rather than formal adoption steps.

The Bennett v. Gentile (2024) case addressed whether a third-party beneficiary to a will could sue a drafting attorney for negligence when the attorney failed to update the will as instructed. The Maryland Supreme Court held that the strict privity of contract rule barred the claim, as benefiting the plaintiff was not the sole purpose of the attorney-client relationship. This decision reinforces Maryland’s limited scope for third-party beneficiary claims against estate planning attorneys.

When drafting a last will and testament, the testator identifies all the people who are to be future beneficiaries of the testator’s estate. Although many beneficiaries are relatives or friends, this is not always the case: in many instances, beneficiaries are institutions, such as charitable organizations, colleges or universities, hospitals, or other entities.

Wills are frequently challenged, so drafting defensively is essential. Ensuring signature pages are properly affixed, numbered, and signed in the presence of witnesses helps prevent disputes and reinforces authenticity.

ChatGPT said: 3-Line Summary: In Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio (2016), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals addressed a widow’s attempt to invalidate her late husband’s will over technicalities about page attachment. The court ruled that the will was properly attested, rejecting her reliance on a 1921 case. This decision highlights how emotional disputes and large estates often drive far-fetched legal arguments.

High-asset individuals face complex estate planning challenges that require careful attention to tax laws, trust management, and will drafting. Choosing trustworthy personal representatives and trustees is crucial to prevent disputes and corruption. Creating charitable trusts ensures philanthropic goals are fulfilled effectively and securely.

In In the Matter of Williams Revocable Trust (2017), disputes arose between trustees and a charitable foundation following the decedent’s death. The court dismissed the foundation’s appeal on trustee removal due to lack of a final, appealable judgment, while unresolved damages claims proceeded to trial. The case underscores the importance of careful estate planning and qualified legal counsel to prevent and navigate complex trust disputes.

In Estate of Vess (2017), a niece challenged the validity of Howard Vess’s 2006 will on multiple grounds, including lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The court emphasized the importance of procedural correctness in caveat proceedings, ultimately allowing the case to proceed on substantive issues rather than technicalities. The case illustrates the complexity of will contests and the need for experienced legal counsel.