Estate of Grant

4 Citing cases

  1. Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9186 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 120 times
    In Ministers, the Court of Appeals held that New York choice-of-law provisions in retirement and death benefit plans for certain ministers and missionaries controlled over a New York statutory directive, EPTL 3-5.1(b)(2), that would have applied the substantive law of the decedent's domicile at death in determining the effect of the decedent's divorce on the designation of his wife as beneficiary.

    That is so because a clear majority of states follow that rule (see Hoglan v. Moore, 219 Ala. 497, 501, 122 So. 824, 828 [1929] ; Vansickle v. Hazeltine, 29 Idaho 228, 233โ€“234, 158 P. 326, 327 [1916] ; Gibson v. Dowell, 42 Ark. 164, 166 [1883] ; In re Moore's Estate, 190 Cal.App.2d 833, 841โ€“843, 12 Cal.Rptr. 436, 440โ€“441 [4th Dist.1961] ; In re Madril's Estate, 71 Colo. 123, 126, 204 P. 483, 484 [1922] ; Oehler v. Olson, 2005 WL 758038, *2, 2005 Conn. Super LEXIS 574, *5โ€“6 [Feb. 28, 2005, No. CV030083327] ; PNC Bank, Delaware v. New Jersey State Socy. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2008 WL 2891150, *2 n. 3, 2008 Del.Ch. LEXIS 288, *5 n. 3 [July 14, 2008] ; Cockrell v. Lewis, 389 So.2d 307, 308 [Fla.Dist.Ct.App, 5th Dist.1980] ; In re Estate of Grant, 34 Haw. 559, 564 [1938] ; Davis v. Upson, 209 Ill. 206, 212โ€“213, 70 N.E. 602, 604 [1904] ; Thieband v. Sebastian, 10 Ind. 454, 456 [1858] ; Lincoln's Estate v. Briggs, 199 N.W.2d 337, 338 [Iowa 1972] ; Matter of Estate of Rivas, 233 Kan. 898, 901, 666 P.2d 691, 693 [1983] ; Radford v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 185 Ky. 453, 459, 215 S.W. 285, 288 [1919] ; Williams v. Pope Mfg. Co., 52 La.Ann. 1417, 1438โ€“1439, 27 So. 851, 860 [1900] ; Smith v. Howard, 86 Me. 203, 205โ€“206, 29 A. 1008, 1009 [1894] ; Harding v. Schapiro, 120 Md. 541, 548, 87 A. 951, 954 [1913] ; Blake v. Williams, 23 Mass. 286, 314 [1828] ; In re Sewart's Estate, 342 Mich. 491, 499โ€“501, 70 N.W.2d 732, 736โ€“737 [1955] ; Lane v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 356 Mo. 76, 82, 201 S.W.2d 288, 291 [1947] ; In re Smith's Estate, 126 Mont. 558, 563, 255 P.2d 687, 690 [1953] ; In re Forney's Estate, 43 Nev. 227, 232, 184 P. 206, 206 [1919] ; Cade v. Davis, 96 N.C. 139, 147, 2 S.E. 225, 228 [1887] ; In re Coleman's Estate, 98 N.W.2d 784, 789 [N.D.1

  2. Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9186 (N.Y. 2015)

    After all, the parties to a death benefit contract would ordinarily expect that, regardless of which state's law they choose, they will be subject to the rule that the law of the state of domicile determines the recipients of personal property upon the owner's death. That is so because a clear majority of states follow that rule ( see Hoglan v Moore, 219 Ala 497, 501 [Ala 1929]; Vansickle v Hazeltine, 29 Idaho 228, 233-234 [Idaho 1916]; Gibson v Dowell, 42 Ark 164, 166 [AK 1883]; Estate of Moore, 190 Cal App 2d 833, 841-843 [Cal Ct App, 4th App Dist 1961]; Estate of Madril v Madril, 71 Colo 123, 126 [Colo 1922]; Oehler v Olson, 2005 Conn Super LEXIS 574, *5-*6 [Conn Super Ct 2005]; PNC Bank v N.J. State SPCA, 2008 Del Ch LEXIS 288, *5 n3 [Del Ch 2008]; Cockrell v Lewis, 389 So 2d 307, 308 [Fla Dist Ct App 5th Dist 1980]; In re Estate of Grant, 34 Haw 559, 564 [Haw 1938]; Davis v Upson, 209 Ill 206, 212-213 [Ill 1904]; Thieband v Sebastian, 10 Ind 345, 347 [Ind 1858]; Estate of Lincoln v Briggs, 199 NW2d 337, 338 [Iowa 1972]; In re Estate of Rivas, 233 Kan 898, 901 [Kan 1983]; Radford v Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 185 Ky 453, 459 [Ky 1919]; Williams v Pope Mfg. Co., 52 La Ann 1417, 1438-1439 [LA 1900]; Smith v Howard, 86 Me 203, 205-206 [Me 1894]; Harding v Schapiro, 120 Md 541, 548 [Md 1913]; Blake v Williams, 23 Mass 286, 314 [Mass 1828]; In re Stewart Estate, 342 Mich 491, 499-501 [Mich 1955]; Lane v St. Louis Union Trust Co., 356 Mo 76, 82 [Mo 1947]; In re Smith's Estate, 126 Mont 558, 563 [Mont 1953]; In re Estate of Forney, 43 Nev 227, 232 [Nev 1919]; Cade v Davis, 96 NC 139, 147 [NC 1887]; In re Estate of Coleman, 98 NW2d 784, 789 [ND 1959]; Estate of Luoma, 2011-Ohio-4701, P28 [Ohio Ct App 2011]; In re Revard's Estate, 1936 OK 844, P10 [Okla 1936]; Pickering v Pickering, 64 RI 112, 117-120 [RI 1940]; cf. Smith v Normart, 51 Ariz

  3. Matter of the Estate of Marcos

    88 Haw. 148 (Haw. 1998)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the Haw. circuit court had no jurisdiction over the probate of Ferdinand's estate, inasmuch as probate jurisdiction is limited by statute to decedents formerly domiciled in the state

    " 'In order to acquire new domicile there must be residence or bodily presence in the new location and an intention to remain; act and intent must concur; in addition there must be an intention to abandon the old domicile.' " Yamane v. Piper, 51 Haw. 339, 340, 461 P.2d 131, 132 (1969) (quoting Powell v. Powell, 40 Haw. 625, 629 (1954)) (emphasis added); see also Whitehead v. Whitehead, 53 Haw. 302, 308, 492 P.2d 939, 943 (1972) ("A person establishes his domicile in a state by being physically present there with the intention of remaining indefinitely."); Estate of Grant, 34 Haw. 559, 562-63 (1938) (woman who bought home in Haw. for health reasons and lived in Haw. at her death continued to be domiciled in California given her intention to ultimately return to California); In re Kadjar's Estate, 200 Misc. 268, 102 N.Y.S.2d 113, 119 (N.Y. Surrogate's Ct. 1950), aff'd, 279 A.D. 1008, 113 N.Y.S.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div.), appeal denied, 280 A.D. 777, 113 N.Y.S.2d 678 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952) (Former Shah of Persia, who fled the country upon his government's overthrow and who spent remaining seven years of his life in various European countries, primarily France, retained Iranian domicile because there was no proof he intended to abandon his Iranian domicile). " '[A] domicile once established is presumed to continue and one alleging that a change has taken place has the burden of proof.

  4. In re Lassin's Estate

    33 Wn. 2d 163 (Wash. 1949)   Cited 11 times

    Polk v. Polk, 158 Wn. 242, 290 P. 861; Kankelborg v. Kankelborg, 199 Wn. 259, 90 P.2d 1018; In re Eaton's Will, 186 Wis. 124, 202 N.W. 309; Restatement, Conflict of Laws, p. 47, ยง 23. Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make the place of residence one's home, are the essential elements of domicile, Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 83 L.Ed. 817, 59 S.Ct. 563, 830, 121 A.L.R. 1179; and in every case of change of domicile, these two things are indispensable and must be shown. Sun Printing Publishing Ass'n v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377, 48 L.Ed. 1027, 24 S.Ct. 696; Estate of Grant, 34 Haw. 559 Hawaii; In re Mullins, 26 Wn.2d 419, 174 P.2d 790. In the present case, there seems to be no contention that Mr. and Mrs. Lassin did not intend to establish a residence, or domicile, in Bremerton when they moved there in 1944.