(Image via Shutterstock)
Often the survivorship clauses of a last will and testament do not get too much attention. Clients are focused on the naming of beneficiaries, the disposition of assets, and any disinheritance. It is common, however, for last wills and testaments to include provisions requiring beneficiaries to survive the testator by a particular set of days, whether it be 30, 60, 90, or some greater number. This makes certain that the testator’s wishes are properly carried out and that the individual whom he wants to receive his asset, actually receives it. For example, if a beneficiary died only a few days after a testator, it is possible that the testator’s estate would be distributed to the beneficiary’s estate, individuals whom are unknown or not liked by the initial testator. Without the inclusion of a survivorship provision, this could result in unintended consequences. With a survivorship provision requiring the beneficiary to survive the testator by a certain number of days, the former’s death would result in the bequest being transferred to a contingent beneficiary, pursuant to the wishes of the testator.
At times, one would not want to implement a survivor provision for a spouse, child, or significant other. Sometimes couples or families die within a short time of one another and a time frame will hinder and not help the disposition of the testator’s assets. Such was the case for the Estate of Jill Morris, a New York County resident, who died in June 2016. Morris’s last will had a 30-day survivorship provision that appeared to require that her partner of 18 years, Joan Anderson, survive her by 30 days. Unfortunately, Anderson did not and she lost her life a mere 12 days following her partner. As a result, the contingent beneficiaries, charities Doctors Without Borders, the National Resources Defense Council, and Save The Children, received Anderson’s bequest pursuant to the terms of the residuary clause. Specifically, it was ruled that the charities and not Anderson, or her estate, received Morris’s diamond ring, three paintings, a carousel horse, her safety deposit box, $100,000 in cash, and two New York pieces of real estate.
Since Morris’s passing, Anderson’s daughter fought on behalf of her deceased mother’s estate. She would receive from her mother, if that estate received from Morris’s estate. She argued that Anderson’s estate should receive the significant bequest as was the wish of Morris. The charities and Morris’s last will’s executor argued that the last will and testament provided a 30-day survivorship clause and there was enough proof to support that Morris wanted the 30-day survivorship clause to apply, even to Anderson.
In addition to the last will’s construction issue, this case is also interesting because Morris and Anderson were partners who never married. Anderson’s daughter attributes their lack of a marriage to the stigma of gay marriage for their generation, the women having died in their eighties. The court noted that due to the fact that they were not legally spouses, deference could not be given to Anderson as a surviving spouse although there was evidence of Morris’s intent to make certain that her partner had her properties.
This case highlights the need for all couples to be meticulous with their estate planning — especially those in long-committed relationships without a legal marriage. Marrying one’s longtime partner gives status to the other and the ability to contest last wills before the probate courts. During one’s lifetime, it allows the spouse to make medical decisions and have access in certain situations. In the absence of a last will, it gives status as a surviving spouse under the laws of intestacy. Additionally, it creates a relationship that continues to be viewed by the law as special, whether it is for tax, interpretive, or other issues that are often litigated before the courts. It would seem that the wise words of Gloria Gaynor, “as long as I know how to love, I know I’ll stay alive,” do not hold true for all beneficiaries. Committed couples and families should engage in comprehensive planning to make certain that their wishes are carried out and that unintended consequences or beneficiaries do not receive at the expense of loved ones.
Cori A. Robinson is a solo practitioner having founded Cori A. Robinson PLLC, a New York and New Jersey law firm, in 2017. For more than a decade Cori has focused her law practice on trusts and estates and elder law including estate and Medicaid planning, probate and administration, estate litigation, and guardianships. She can be reached at cori@robinsonestatelaw.com.