A. If a testator's surviving spouse married the testator after the testator executed a will, the surviving spouse is entitled to receive as an intestate share that is not less than the value of the share of the estate the spouse would have received if the testator had died intestate as to any portion of the testator's estate that neither is devised to a child of the testator who was born before the testator married the surviving spouse and who is not a child of the surviving spouse nor is devised to a descendant of that child or that passes under section 14-2603 or 14-2604 to that child or to a descendant of that child, unless:
1. It appears from the will or other evidence that the will was made in contemplation of the testator's marriage to the surviving spouse.
2. The will expresses the intention that it is to be effective notwithstanding any subsequent marriage.
3. The testator provided for the spouse by transfer outside the will and the intent that the transfer is in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by the testator's statements or can be reasonably inferred from the amount of the transfer or other evidence.
B. In satisfying the share provided by subsection A of this section, any devises made by the will to the testator's surviving spouse are applied first. Other devises abate pursuant to section 14-3902 unless the devise is to a child of the testator who was born before the testator married the surviving spouse and who is not a child of the surviving spouse or is a devise or substitute gift under section 14-2603 or 14-2604 to a descendant of that child.
Notes of Decisions
Matter of Est. of Beaman, 583 P.2d 270 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 16× “Appellant correctly advocated at the trial court and in this Court that A.R.S. § 14-2301 (U.P.C. § 2-301), which specifically deals with a spouse omitted from a will, was the applicable statute to the facts involved here.”
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui, 870 P.2d 1188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “She asserts that a valid common law marriage arose during a week-long visit to Kansas, and that Arizona must recognize this marriage even though such unions cannot be created in this state.”
Beauchamp v. Eichenberger, 564 P.2d 908 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “Dorothy II objected to the claim on the grounds that she was an omitted spouse under the provisions of A.R.S. § 14-2301 and therefore entitled to the share of the estate she would have received had the decedent died intestate.”
Matter of Est. of Frandson, 356 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1984).
“1978); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 14-2301 and 14-6106 (1975); Matter of Estate of Taggart, 95 N.”
Matter of Est. of Groves, 788 P.2d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “She then filed a petition for adjudication of intestacy, alleging that decedent’s will was revoked pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-2301 by reason of his later marriage to her.”
Matter of Est. of Ivancovich, 728 P.2d 661 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “§ 14-2507 provides that a will or any part thereof is revoked by destruction if it is done with the intent of revoking it.”
Schott v. Frandson, 356 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1984).
“1978); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 14-2301 and 14-6106 (1975); Matter of Estate of Taggart, 95 N.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2301(A) — 1 case
Matter of Est. of Ivancovich, 728 P.2d 661 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“§ 14-2507 provides that a will or any part thereof is revoked by destruction if it is done with the intent of revoking it.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.