Estate Planning On Your Second Marriage

Timing can be just as critical as substance in settlement agreements, particularly when offers include firm acceptance deadlines. Pattison v. Pattison (2025) reaffirmed that failing to accept a settlement offer by its stated deadline constitutes a rejection under basic contract law principles. The case highlights how family law courts apply contract doctrines strictly and underscores the importance of understanding offer-and-acceptance rules during divorce negotiations.

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.

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.

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.