Estate Planning

The Rule Against Perpetuities can create complex issues when wills establish remainder interests and multi-tiered trusts for future beneficiaries. In In re Estate of Snyder (1950), the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a residuary trust by interpreting the will in a manner that favored validity and avoided violating the Rule Against Perpetuities. The case highlights the importance of precise estate planning language when creating trusts, remainder interests, and provisions for future generations.

Maryland law applies a lower threshold for testamentary capacity than for the capacity required to enter an enforceable business contract. A testator is generally presumed sane, and a will may remain valid even when capacity exists only during a brief “lucid interval” at the time of execution. Understanding Maryland’s testamentary capacity standards can help families reduce the risk of will contests and costly estate litigation.

Ambiguous language in a will can create significant disputes among beneficiaries and may ultimately lead to estate litigation. In Lee v. Estate of Davis (1961), the Supreme Court of Maryland emphasized the importance of considering the will as a whole, the surrounding circumstances, and the testator’s intent when interpreting an ambiguous bequest. The case demonstrates why precise language and experienced estate planning guidance are essential when drafting wills and specific bequests.

Contract law principles can play an important role in estate litigation, particularly when disputes involve settlement agreements and asset transfers. In In re Estate of Dinesh O. Parikh (2024), the court upheld a court-ordered consent settlement agreement and confirmed that the parties could not unilaterally repudiate their binding agreement. The case highlights how established contract principles can shape the enforceability of agreements arising from complex estate disputes.

In Karsenty v. Schoukroun (2009), the Supreme Court of Maryland addressed whether transferring assets to a revocable trust for a non-spouse beneficiary could constitute fraud against a surviving spouse’s elective share. The court rejected a per se rule based solely on the settlor’s retained control over the trust assets and instead held that the key inquiry is whether the decedent actually intended to defraud the surviving spouse, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. This landmark decision provides important guidance for Maryland estate planning involving revocable trusts, elective shares, and transfers that may affect a surviving spouse’s inheritance rights.

In Barclay v. Castruccio (2020), the Supreme Court of Maryland examined the narrow tort of intentional interference with prospective gifts or inheritances. The court held that the tort applies to wrongful interference occurring before the testator’s death, meaning post-death lawsuits seeking to affect an inheritance do not fall within this specific tort. The decision provides important guidance for Maryland inheritance disputes by clarifying the timing and limited scope of claims for intentional interference with prospective inheritances.

In Johnson v. Johnson (2009), Maryland courts addressed whether beneficiaries with future remainder interests have a right to receive information about trust assets and administration. The court recognized that such beneficiaries may be entitled to trust documents and accountings, allowing them to monitor trustees and help ensure that fiduciary duties are properly performed. The case highlights the importance of understanding beneficiary rights, particularly for those whose interests in a trust will not become possessory until a future date.

Maryland’s testamentary capacity framework requires a testator to be of sound mind at the moment a will is executed, including an understanding of the will, the property involved, the beneficiaries, and the intended distribution of assets. The law applies a relatively low threshold and recognizes the “moment of signing” principle, meaning capacity may exist only briefly when the will is executed. Maryland law also presumes sanity in a properly executed will and recognizes important parallels between testamentary capacity for wills and trusts.

In Wall v. Heller (1985), Maryland courts examined the high standard required to establish undue influence in a will contest. The case demonstrates that undue influence requires more than persuasion or suggestion and generally involves conduct that overcomes the testator’s free will and independent judgment. Once a will is facially valid, a challenger bears a significant burden to present compelling evidence sufficient to overcome its presumed validity.

In Slicer v. Griffith (1975), Maryland courts examined whether an elderly testator possessed sufficient testamentary capacity to execute a new will. The case highlights the importance of the challenger’s burden when alleging lack of capacity, particularly where advanced age, illness, senility, and the involvement of an interested beneficiary raise concerns about the validity of a will.

In Benjamin v. Woodring (1973), the Maryland courts examined whether a testator’s fixed belief that his wife had been unfaithful constituted an “insane delusion” sufficient to invalidate a revised will that disinherited her. The court established that a belief may constitute an insane delusion when it is so irrational that a person of sound mind would not hold it, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the testator lacked sufficient capacity to alter his original will. The case became an important precedent for evaluating testamentary capacity and insane delusions, later informing the analysis in Dougherty v. Rubinstein.

In Dougherty v. Rubinstein (2007), the Maryland courts examined whether dementia and fixed false beliefs were sufficient to establish a lack of testamentary capacity. Although the testator had been diagnosed with dementia and held unfounded beliefs that his son had stolen from him, the court found that these circumstances alone did not establish incapacity, particularly where the testator continued to live independently and make decisions.

In Lowenthal v. Rome (1984), the Maryland courts examined how extrinsic evidence may be used to determine a testator’s intent when a will contains uncertainty about the distribution of property. The court upheld the use of a personal letter written by the testator as evidence of his intent and relied in part on the presumption against partial intestacy to conclude that all property was intended to pass to the named beneficiaries.

In Allen v. Ritter (2011), the Maryland courts examined whether a personal representative may require beneficiaries to sign liability release forms before receiving their final estate distributions. The court held that personal representatives may withhold distribution until beneficiaries execute such releases, while recognizing that the releases do not protect against claims involving fraud, material mistake, or substantial irregularity. The case provides important guidance on the statutory authority and practical responsibilities of personal representatives during Maryland estate administration.

Jacobson v. Jacobson (2022) clarified standing requirements in estate litigation. The Maryland appellate court held that a disinherited niece lacked standing to challenge estate planning documents on grounds of undue influence because she was no longer a beneficiary and was not an heir at law. The case established that a prior or speculative interest in an estate is insufficient to bring a legal challenge without a current or legally recognized financial interest.

Shump v. Wannall (2016) held that a residuary clause directing assets to a trust was invalid because the referenced trust was not created simultaneously with the will. The Maryland court strictly interpreted the applicable statute, ruling that a trust established three weeks after the will did not satisfy the requirement for a valid pour-over provision. The case underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural requirements in estate planning.