In re Determining the Validity of the Right of Election in the Estate of Hearn
In the Matter of Determining the Validity of the Right of Election in the Estate of Cathleen G. Hearn, William G. Hearn, Appellant Joseph P. Kissling, etc., of Cathleen G. Hearn
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, entered after trial by the court *925 without a jury, adjudging that the notice of election filed by the appellant, surviving husband, under section 18, Decedent Estate Law, is invalid, and that the appellant is not entitled to share in the decedent’s estate, reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate, and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for entry of a decree accordingly. Abandonment was not an issue in the case, and, in any event, was not established by the evidence. (Thompson v. Thompson, 163 Misc. 946 ; affd., 254 App. Div. 601 .) The only issue was whether the execution of the separation agreement of February 10, 1938, operates to deprive the surviving spouse of the right of election under section 18, Decedent Estate Law. The instrument has no such effect, as it was not acknowledged in accordance with subdivision 9 of the statute, (Matter of McGlone, 284 N. Y. 527 , decided December 31, 1940; Matter of Israel, 149 Misc. 620 .) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.