Law of Wills, 2016A

her will. On our de novo review, we find clear evidence that Marguerite intended the 1996 payments
to be in satisfaction of the bequests she made in her will. We find the factual differences ascribed to
the cases concerning the doctrine of satisfaction by the district court do not overcome the
application of that doctrine to the facts in this case.
Based on the doctrine of satisfaction, we reverse that portion of the district court opinion which
determined Mary was entitled to $10,000 from the estate. The bequest of $5,000 to Mary has been
satisfied. Mary is still entitled to receive the $5,000 which represented the share of her brother,
Charles, because this bequest has not been satisfied.
V. Final Report
The executor argues that the district court should have approved the final report. Based on our
conclusions above, we determine the final report correctly provided, “it appears that the devisees
and beneficiaries shown in the Last Will & Testament have received their share of the bequest that
was provided in the Last Will & Testament when the decedent made an advance payment in
1996....” The final report notes that Mary is still entitled to $5,000, which represents the share of
Charles. We conclude the final report should be approved.
VI. Other Issues
Mary has raised some procedural issues regarding this appeal. The supreme court considered these
issues in considering Mary’s motion to dismiss, and denied the motion. We conclude these issues
have already been addressed and we do not consider them further.
We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for an order approving the final report.
Reversed and remanded.
In order to rebut the presumption of satisfaction, the devisee has to show that the testator
did not intend for the lifetime gift to be a substitution for the devise in the will. It is usually difficult
for the court to ascertain the testator’s intent. Consequently some state legislators have enacted
statutes requiring that the testator’s intent to adeem a gift by satisfaction be in writing. These
jurisdictions appear to have created a presumption that the gift has not be adeemed.
SDCL § 29A-2-609. Ademption by satisfaction (S.D.)
(a) Property a testator gave during lifetime to a person is treated as a satisfaction of a devise in whole
or in part, only if (i) the will provides for deduction of the gift, (ii) the testator declared in a writing
that the gift is in satisfaction of the devise or that its value is to be deducted from the value of the
devise, or (iii) the devisee acknowledged in writing that the gift is in satisfaction of the devise or that
its value is to be deducted from the value of the devise.
(b) For purposes of partial satisfaction, property given during lifetime is valued as of the time the
devisee came into possession or enjoyment of the property or at the testator's death, whichever
occurs first.
680