Attorneys Matthew J. Sponheimer and Chandler K. Holcomb recently represented Eugene Kimmel, executor of the estate of the late Janet Moultis. Janet’s will, written in 1974, left her estate first to her husband; if he were not living, then to her parents; and if they were not living, to her brothers and sisters.
Janet’s husband and parents predeceased her.
The question before the court was what should happen when some of Janet’s siblings also passed away before her. Should their shares go only to the siblings who survived, or should those shares pass to the children of the deceased siblings — Janet’s nieces and nephews?
That was in fact the issue here, as three of Janet’s seven siblings predeceased her, leaving seven nieces and nephews unsure of their standing under Janet’s will.
Connecticut’s Antilapse Statute provides generally that if a close family member named in a will dies, their share goes to their children, unless the will clearly says otherwise. The public policy argument is that typically if a person were giving property in his or her will to a child, and that child were to predecease, that person would want property that he or she was giving to that deceased child to go to that child’s children (that person’s grandchildren). Likewise, as in this case, if a person was giving property to his or her sibling in a will and that sibling were to predecease, then typically a person would want that property to go to that deceased sibling’s children (that person’s nieces or nephews). The purpose of the statute is to avoid inadvertent (“accidental”) disinheritance.
Attorneys Sponheimer and Holcomb argued that this law applied and Janet’s nieces and nephews should be included, while the opposing side argued it did not and Janet’s nieces and nephews should be excluded.
The opposing family members pointed to the phrase “survivor to take all” in Janet’s will, claiming it meant she intended to leave everything to only her surviving siblings. Sponheimer and Holcomb maintained that this was not strong enough language to override the Anti-Lapse Statute.
The probate court, and later Judge Yonatan Zamir on appeal, agreed with Sponheimer’s and Holcomb’s position. The court ruled that because Janet’s will did not specifically exclude her nieces and nephews, the Antilapse Statute applies, and Janet’s nieces and nephews inherit their deceased parent’s share.
Outcome: This decision ensures that Janet’s estate is distributed fairly, consistent with Connecticut law and long-standing principles of inheritance.