In re Crozier Estate

15 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. Hall

    392 A.2d 1103 (Md. 1978)   Cited 16 times
    Reversing intermediate appellate court, and holding that phrases in a will, "I direct that * * * all estate and inheritance taxes, be paid as soon after my death as can lawfully and conveniently be done," and that the executor "pay all expenses enumerated * * * either from the real or personal property of my estate," did not constitute a direction by the testatrix that taxes be paid from the residuary estate

    Accepting the premise, as all courts on both sides of this controversy do, that a statute directing apportionment will only be ignored if the testator clearly and unambiguously indicates that to be his intention, we fail to see how the first clause, whether read in isolation or examined in the context of the entire will, in any way expresses Dr. Johnson's desire that all the beneficiaries should not share proportionately the bite of the federal estate tax. A comparison of In re Grondin's Estate, 98 N.H. 313, 100 A.2d 160 (1953) with In re Crozier's Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895 (1964), indicates that the latter decision may have overruled the former sub silentio.Compare, e.g., Succession of Jones, 172 So.2d 312, 314 (La. App. 1965) and In re Ogburn's Estate, 406 P.2d 655, 657 (Wyo. 1965) with In re Carrington's Estate, 136 N.E.2d 182, 185 (Ohio P. Ct. 1956) and Skaggs v. Yunck, 10 Or. App. 536, 500 P.2d 1230, 1231 (1972).

  2. In re Estate of Holst

    433 A.2d 1284 (N.H. 1981)

    RSA 88-A:2 provides that"[u]nless the will otherwise provides," the federal estate tax and the estate tax payable to this State under RSA ch. 87 ("Taxation of Transfer of Certain Estates") "shall be apportioned among all persons interested in the estate." See In re Robbins Estate, 116 N.H. 248, 249-50, 356 A.2d 679, 681 (1976); In re Crozier Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 442, 201 A.2d 895, 896 (1964). They assert that the inter vivos trust falls within the definition of "estate" in RSA 88-A:1(a), and that, therefore, absent any contrary intent in the will, the beneficiaries of the inter vivos trust are "person[s] interested in the estate," RSA 88-A:1(c), who must bear a proportionate share of the taxes as defined in RSA 88-A:1 (e).

  3. Estate of Hobbs v. Hardesty

    167 W. Va. 239 (W. Va. 1981)   Cited 1 times

    "Here . . . the apparent intention of the testator was to give specific legacies and that costs of administration, inheritance taxes and other expenses be paid out of the residuary estate."See also People v. McCormick, 327 Ill. 547, 158 N.E. 861 (1927); Succession of Jones, 172 So.2d 312 (La.App. 1965); Thomas v. Fox, 348 Mass. 152, 202 N.E.2d 912 (1964); In re Crozier's Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895 (1964). "But it is expressly provided that the foregoing provisions of this section are subject to the following qualification, that none of such provisions shall in any way impair the right or power of any person by will or by written instrument executed inter vivos to make direction for the payment of such estate taxes, and to designate the fund or funds or property out of which such payment shall be made, and in every such case the provisions of the will or of such written instrument executed inter vivos shall be given effect to the same extent as if this section had not been enacted."

  4. Hall v. Johnson

    38 Md. App. 589 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1978)   Cited 6 times

    The second case. In re Crozier's Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895 (1964), interpreted a clause reading: "I direct the payment of all my just debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration and inheritance taxes out of my estate as soon as practicable after my decease."

  5. Santa Barbara National Bank v. Shriners Hospitals For Crippled Children

    38 Cal.App.3d 890 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    From the simple language of his page-and-a-half will we conclude that Dark intended the words, any and all costs, expenses and inheritance taxes, to encompass federal estate taxes. ( Thomas v. Fox (1964) 348 Mass. 152 [ 202 N.E.2d 912, 913];In re Crozier's Estate (1964) 105 N.H. 440 [ 201 A.2d 895, 896]; see Annot. 37 A.L.R.2d 7, 83-86.) In the context of this will we construe the phraseology, any and all . . . expenses and inheritance taxes . . . from the probating, as sufficiently comprehensive in scope to include federal estate taxes.

  6. Skaggs v. Yunck

    500 P.2d 1230 (Or. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    "* * * I hereby direct my funeral expenses and all my just debts, taxes (Federal State inheritance taxes included) and liabilities to be paid by my executrix hereinafter named, as soon after my death as may be convenient.", and cite In re Crozier Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895 (1964), to support their claim. The will involved in the Crozier case stated:

  7. In re Rennie's Estate

    430 F.2d 1388 (10th Cir. 1970)   Cited 7 times
    Wyoming apportionment statute

    There appear to be no other significant cases from Wyoming and the parties cite a number of cases from other jurisdictions. It is apparent that many cases may be found construing particular provisions of wills on this issue, and the cases may be grouped as those which make a distinction between inheritance taxes and estate taxes, and those which use the terms interchangeably. See 37 A.L.R.2d 83-85 and 18 A.L.R.2d 1218. The Government cites In re Whitebread's Estate, 407 Pa. 596, 181 A.2d 290; In re Crozier's Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895, and Thomas v. Fox, 348 Mass. 152, 202 N.E.2d 912. These cases do use the terms to apply to both the federal and State death taxes or hold that "inheritance" taxes mean both federal estate taxes and State inheritance taxes. The court on the other hand relied on several cases including Moore v. Moore, 204 Tenn. 108, 315 S.W.2d 526, and In re Burnett's Estate, 43 N.J. Super. 534, 129 A.2d 321. The appellee has cited other similar cases which make the distinction between estate taxes and inheritance taxes.

  8. Matter of Estate of Bell

    764 P.2d 689 (Wyo. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    "We are one of three states which have adopted the Uniform Estate Tax Apportionment Act, as it relates to Federal estate taxes. With one exception, so far as we can determine, In re Crozier's Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895, which is not particularly helpful here in view of the variance in the language used in the will, the Uniform Act has not been subjected to judicial scrutiny. Nevertheless, we are not without guidance in the matter.

  9. In re Estate of Thompson

    386 A.2d 1280 (N.H. 1978)   Cited 4 times

    There is no question that Mrs. Thompson's will directed that death taxes be charged against the residue of the estate and not be apportioned, so that had the residue been sufficient to cover the tax liability the statute would not require apportionment. In re Robbins Estate, 116 N.H. 248, 356 A.2d 679 (1976); In re Crozier Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895 (1964); In re Whitelaw Estate, 104 N.H. 307, 185 A.2d 65 (1962). In the instant case, however, because the residue is inadequate to pay the entire amount of death taxes, the testatrix' direction cannot be fully carried out, and the question arises whether the apportionment statute applies to the extent that the residue is insufficient to pay the taxes.

  10. In re Robbins Estate

    356 A.2d 679 (N.H. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    " RSA 88-A:2. In re Annie G. Crozier Estate, 105 N.H. 440, 201 A.2d 895 (1964), held that the direction to pay "inheritance taxes out of my estate" indicated an intention to pay both estate and inheritance taxes out of the residue since "inheritance tax," considering the context of the will as a whole, was used in its popular and nontechnical sense as including an estate tax. The case further noted that the will manifested an intent to prefer specific legacies and bequests over the residuary beneficiaries.