SECTION 2-302. OMITTED CHILDREN. Uniform Probate Code
(1) If the testator had no child living when he [or she] executed the will, an omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives a share in the estate equal in value to that which the child would have received had the testator died intestate, unless the will devised all or substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child and that other parent survives the testator and is entitled to take under the will.
(2) If the testator had one or more children living when he [or she] executed the will, and the will devised property or an interest in property to one or more of the then-living children, an omitted after-born or after-adopted child is entitled to share in the testator’s estate as follows:
(A) The portion of the testator’s estate in which the omitted after-born or after-adopted child is entitled to share is limited to devises made to the testator’s then-living children under the will.
(B) The omitted after-born or after-adopted child is entitled to receive the share of the testator’s estate, as limited in subparagraph (A), that the child would have received
(1) If the testator had no child living when he [or she] executed the will, an omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives a share in the estate equal in value to that which the child would have received had the testator died intestate, unless the will devised all or substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child and that other parent survives the testator and is entitled to take under the will.
(2) If the testator had one or more children living when he [or she] executed the will, and the will devised property or an interest in property to one or more of the then-living children, an omitted after-born or after-adopted child is entitled to share in the testator’s estate as follows:
(A) The portion of the testator’s estate in which the omitted after-born or after-adopted child is entitled to share is limited to devises made to the testator’s then-living children under the will.
(B) The omitted after-born or after-adopted child is entitled to receive the share of the testator’s estate, as limited in subparagraph (A), that the child would have received
128
had the testator included all omitted after-born and after-adopted children with the children to
whom devises were made under the will and had given an equal share of the estate to each child.
(C) To the extent feasible, the interest granted an omitted after-born or after-adopted child under this section must be of the same character, whether equitable or legal, present or future, as that devised to the testator’s then-living children under the will.
(D) In satisfying a share provided by this paragraph, devises to the testator’s children who were living when the will was executed abate ratably. In abating the devises of the then-living children, the court shall preserve to the maximum extent possible the character of the testamentary plan adopted by the testator.
(b) Neither subsection (a)(1) nor subsection (a)(2) applies if:
(1) it appears from the will that the omission was intentional; or
(2) the testator provided for the omitted after-born or after-adopted child by
transfer outside the will and the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by the testator’s statements or is reasonably inferred from the amount of the transfer or other evidence.
(c) If at the time of execution of the will the testator fails to provide in his [or her] will for a living child solely because he [or she] believes the child to be dead, the child is entitled to share in the estate as if the child were an omitted after-born or after-adopted child.
(d) In satisfying a share provided by subsection (a)(1), devises made by the will abate under Section 3-902.
Comment
This section provides for both the case where a child was born or adopted after the execution of the will and not foreseen at the time and thus not provided for in the will, and the rare case where a testator omits one of his or her children because of the mistaken belief that the child is dead. For the purpose of this section, the term “child” refers to a child who would take
(C) To the extent feasible, the interest granted an omitted after-born or after-adopted child under this section must be of the same character, whether equitable or legal, present or future, as that devised to the testator’s then-living children under the will.
(D) In satisfying a share provided by this paragraph, devises to the testator’s children who were living when the will was executed abate ratably. In abating the devises of the then-living children, the court shall preserve to the maximum extent possible the character of the testamentary plan adopted by the testator.
(b) Neither subsection (a)(1) nor subsection (a)(2) applies if:
(1) it appears from the will that the omission was intentional; or
(2) the testator provided for the omitted after-born or after-adopted child by
transfer outside the will and the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by the testator’s statements or is reasonably inferred from the amount of the transfer or other evidence.
(c) If at the time of execution of the will the testator fails to provide in his [or her] will for a living child solely because he [or she] believes the child to be dead, the child is entitled to share in the estate as if the child were an omitted after-born or after-adopted child.
(d) In satisfying a share provided by subsection (a)(1), devises made by the will abate under Section 3-902.
Comment
This section provides for both the case where a child was born or adopted after the execution of the will and not foreseen at the time and thus not provided for in the will, and the rare case where a testator omits one of his or her children because of the mistaken belief that the child is dead. For the purpose of this section, the term “child” refers to a child who would take
129
under a class gift created in the testator’s will. See Section 2-705.
Basic Purposes and Scope of 1990 Revisions. This section was substantially revised in 1990. The revisions had two basic objectives. The first was to provide that a will that devised, under trust or not, all or substantially all of the testator’s estate to the other parent of the omitted child prevents an after-born or after-adopted child from taking an intestate share if none of the testator’s children was living when he or she executed the will. (Under this rule, the other parent must survive the testator and be entitled to take under the will.)
Under the pre-1990 Code, such a will prevented the omitted child’s entitlement only if the testator had one or more children living when he or she executed the will. The rationale for the revised rule is found in the empirical evidence (cited in the Comment to Section 2-102) that suggests that even testators with children tend to devise their entire estates to their surviving spouses, especially in smaller estates. The testator’s purpose is not to disinherit the children; rather, such a will evidences a purpose to trust the surviving parent to use the property for the benefit of the children, as appropriate. This attitude of trust of the surviving parent carries over to the case where none of the children have been born when the will is executed.
The second basic objective of the 1990 revisions was to provide that if the testator had children when he or she executed the will, and if the will made provision for one or more of the then-living children, an omitted after-born or after-adopted child does not take a full intestate share (which might be substantially larger or substantially smaller than given to the living children). Rather, the omitted after-born or after-adopted child participates on a pro rata basis in the property devised, under trust or not, to the then-living children.
A more detailed description of the revised rules follows.
No Child Living When Will Executed. If the testator had no child living when he or she executed the will, subsection (a)(1) provides that an omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives the share he or she would have received had the testator died intestate, unless the will devised, under trust or not, all or substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child. If the will did devise, under trust or not, all or substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child, and if that other parent survives the testator and is entitled to take under the will, the omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives no share of the estate. In the case of an after-adopted child, the term “other parent” refers to the other adopting parent. (The other parent of the omitted child might survive the testator, but not be entitled to take under the will because, for example, that devise, under trust or not, to the other parent was revoked under Section 2-803 or 2-804.)
One or More Children Living When Will Executed. If the testator had one or more children living when the will was executed, subsection (a)(2), which implements the second basic objective stated above, provides that an omitted after-born or after-adopted child only receives a share of the testator’s estate if the testator’s will devised property or an equitable or legal interest in property to one or more of the children living at the time the will was executed; if not, the omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives nothing.
Basic Purposes and Scope of 1990 Revisions. This section was substantially revised in 1990. The revisions had two basic objectives. The first was to provide that a will that devised, under trust or not, all or substantially all of the testator’s estate to the other parent of the omitted child prevents an after-born or after-adopted child from taking an intestate share if none of the testator’s children was living when he or she executed the will. (Under this rule, the other parent must survive the testator and be entitled to take under the will.)
Under the pre-1990 Code, such a will prevented the omitted child’s entitlement only if the testator had one or more children living when he or she executed the will. The rationale for the revised rule is found in the empirical evidence (cited in the Comment to Section 2-102) that suggests that even testators with children tend to devise their entire estates to their surviving spouses, especially in smaller estates. The testator’s purpose is not to disinherit the children; rather, such a will evidences a purpose to trust the surviving parent to use the property for the benefit of the children, as appropriate. This attitude of trust of the surviving parent carries over to the case where none of the children have been born when the will is executed.
The second basic objective of the 1990 revisions was to provide that if the testator had children when he or she executed the will, and if the will made provision for one or more of the then-living children, an omitted after-born or after-adopted child does not take a full intestate share (which might be substantially larger or substantially smaller than given to the living children). Rather, the omitted after-born or after-adopted child participates on a pro rata basis in the property devised, under trust or not, to the then-living children.
A more detailed description of the revised rules follows.
No Child Living When Will Executed. If the testator had no child living when he or she executed the will, subsection (a)(1) provides that an omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives the share he or she would have received had the testator died intestate, unless the will devised, under trust or not, all or substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child. If the will did devise, under trust or not, all or substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child, and if that other parent survives the testator and is entitled to take under the will, the omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives no share of the estate. In the case of an after-adopted child, the term “other parent” refers to the other adopting parent. (The other parent of the omitted child might survive the testator, but not be entitled to take under the will because, for example, that devise, under trust or not, to the other parent was revoked under Section 2-803 or 2-804.)
One or More Children Living When Will Executed. If the testator had one or more children living when the will was executed, subsection (a)(2), which implements the second basic objective stated above, provides that an omitted after-born or after-adopted child only receives a share of the testator’s estate if the testator’s will devised property or an equitable or legal interest in property to one or more of the children living at the time the will was executed; if not, the omitted after-born or after-adopted child receives nothing.
130
Subsection (a)(2) is modeled on N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 5-3.2. Subsection
(a)(2) is illustrated by the following example.
Example. When G executed her will, she had two living children, A and B. Her will devised $7,500 to each child. After G executed her will, she had another child, C.
C is entitled to $5,000. $2,500 (1/3 of $7,500) of C’s entitlement comes from A’s $7,500 devise (reducing it to $5,000); and $2,500 (1/3 of $7,500) comes from B’s $7,500 devise (reducing it to $5,000).
Variation. If G’s will had devised $10,000 to A and $5,000 to B, C would be entitled to $5,000. $3,333 (1/3 of $10,000) of C’s entitlement comes from A’s $10,000 devise (reducing it to $6,667); and $1,667 (1/3 of $5,000) comes from B’s $5,000 devise (reducing it to $3,333).
Subsection (b) Exceptions. To preclude operation of subsection (a)(1) or (2), the testator’s will need not make any provision, even nominal in amount, for a testator’s present or future children; under subsection (b)(1), a simple recital in the will that the testator intends to make no provision for then living children or any the testator thereafter may have would be sufficient.
For a case applying the language of subsection (b)(2), in the context of the omitted spouse provision, see Estate of Bartell, 776 P.2d 885 (Utah 1989).
The moving party has the burden of proof on the elements of subsections (b)(1) and (2).
Subsection (c). Subsection (c) addresses the problem that arises if at the time of execution of the will the testator fails to provide in his or her will for a living child solely because he or she believes the child to be dead. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine whether the testator omitted the living child solely because he or she believed the child to be dead. Cf. Section 2-601, Comment. If the child was omitted solely because of that belief, the child is entitled to share in the estate as if the child were an omitted after-born or after-adopted child.
Abatement Under Subsection (d). Under subsection (d) and Section 3-902, any intestate estate would first be applied to satisfy the intestate share of an omitted after-born or after-adopted child under subsection (a)(1).
Historical Note. This comment was revised in 1993 and 2010.
Example. When G executed her will, she had two living children, A and B. Her will devised $7,500 to each child. After G executed her will, she had another child, C.
C is entitled to $5,000. $2,500 (1/3 of $7,500) of C’s entitlement comes from A’s $7,500 devise (reducing it to $5,000); and $2,500 (1/3 of $7,500) comes from B’s $7,500 devise (reducing it to $5,000).
Variation. If G’s will had devised $10,000 to A and $5,000 to B, C would be entitled to $5,000. $3,333 (1/3 of $10,000) of C’s entitlement comes from A’s $10,000 devise (reducing it to $6,667); and $1,667 (1/3 of $5,000) comes from B’s $5,000 devise (reducing it to $3,333).
Subsection (b) Exceptions. To preclude operation of subsection (a)(1) or (2), the testator’s will need not make any provision, even nominal in amount, for a testator’s present or future children; under subsection (b)(1), a simple recital in the will that the testator intends to make no provision for then living children or any the testator thereafter may have would be sufficient.
For a case applying the language of subsection (b)(2), in the context of the omitted spouse provision, see Estate of Bartell, 776 P.2d 885 (Utah 1989).
The moving party has the burden of proof on the elements of subsections (b)(1) and (2).
Subsection (c). Subsection (c) addresses the problem that arises if at the time of execution of the will the testator fails to provide in his or her will for a living child solely because he or she believes the child to be dead. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine whether the testator omitted the living child solely because he or she believed the child to be dead. Cf. Section 2-601, Comment. If the child was omitted solely because of that belief, the child is entitled to share in the estate as if the child were an omitted after-born or after-adopted child.
Abatement Under Subsection (d). Under subsection (d) and Section 3-902, any intestate estate would first be applied to satisfy the intestate share of an omitted after-born or after-adopted child under subsection (a)(1).
Historical Note. This comment was revised in 1993 and 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment