Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

the trial judge rejected – as highly unlikely – the attorney’s claim that the
decedent decided to convey a substantial portion of his estate to his
attorney instead of to his family members. Furthermore, the trial judge
found nothing about the attorney’s relationship with the decedent that
would support the intent to confer such a substantial personal benefit. On
appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court.
B. Nonprobate Transfers
1. Manary v. Anderson, 292 P.3d 96 (Wash. 2013). Decedent’s will
governed the transfer of a nonprobate asset and not the terms of the
trust that owned the property. Husband and wife created a joint
revocable trust and conveyed their community property residence to it.
The trust provided that at the first spouse’s death, a family trust and a
survivor’s trust were to be created, but the surviving spouse could retain
the survivor’s trust portion in the trust estate originally established. Wife
died and husband did not create the separate trusts. Later, husband
executed a will and indicated that he intended to give his residence to his
new companion. Relying on a statute that provides that an owner’s
interest in any nonprobate asset specifically referred to in the decedent’s
will will belong to the testamentary beneficiary named to receive the
nonprobate asset, notwithstanding any rights of the beneficiary designated
before the date of the will. The Court held that husband clearly intended
to give the property to his companion and that the failure to establish the
family trust pursuant to the trust agreement upon his wife’s death did not
deprive him of that right.
C. Life Insurance
1. State Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ard, 730 S.E.2d 912 (S.C. Ct. App.
2012). Because wife was not required to be the sole beneficiary of a
life insurance policy pursuant to divorce settlement, wife was not
entitled to the entire life insurance proceeds. During the marriage,
decedent attempted to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy
to his then wife. Decedent and wife divorced and pursuant to the divorce
settlement, husband was to continue his life insurance policy of $50,000
and to name wife as beneficiary. At decedent’s death, the life insurance
proceeds were in excess of $85,000 and it was discovered that his
beneficiary designation form was improper. The Court held that because
the divorce settlement did not identify the life insurance policy, wife was
only entitled to $50,000 and not the entire proceeds.
D. Totten Trusts
1. In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).
Presumption of Totten Trust was overcome by evidence that decedent
to treat all children equally. Decedent revised the ownership of his
59