When a testator omits to provide in his or her will for any child of his or hers born
after the execution of his or her will, either during his or her lifetime or after
his or her death, or for any issue of a deceased child of his or hers dying after
the execution of his or her will, or for any issue born after the execution of his
or her will of a deceased child of his or hers dying before the will’s execution,
that child or issue shall take the same share of the testator’s estate as that child
or issue would have been entitled to if the testator had died intestate, unless it
appears that the omission was intentional and not occasioned by accident or mistake.
The term “will”, as used in this section, shall be deemed to include the testator’s
will and all codicils thereto effective at the testator’s death; and the term “the
execution of his or her will” shall be deemed, in a case in which there is a codicil
or codicils, to refer to the execution of the latest codicil effective at the testator’s
death.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1967–2013 · leading case:
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013).
Ankrom v. State, 152 So. 3d 397 (Ala. 2013).
“§ 2514(4) (2005); R.I. Gen. Laws § 33-6-23 et seq. (2011); S.”
Indus. Nat'l Bank v. Isele, 227 A.2d 203 (R.I. 1967).
“1956, §33-6-23, and therefore entitled to a share -o-f the -decedent’s estate -equal to that which he -would have taken had -the decedent died intestate? At the hearing in the superior court the trial justice admitted -only -enough evidence to- establish the existence of a .”
Vance v. Rood, 226 A.2d 143 (R.I. 1967).
“1956, §33-6-23. Said section reads, in pertinent part: “When a testator omits to provide in- his will for any child of his bom after the execution of his will, either during his lifetime or after his -death, or for any issue of a deceased -child of his dying after the execution…”
Indus. Nat'l Bank of Rhode Island v. Isele, 273 A.2d 311 (R.I. 1971).
“Isele, a child allegedly born of the decedent out of lawful wedlock, qualified either to participate in the gifts which the decedent made to his “children” in his will and in his inter vivos trust, or to take as a pretermitted child under §33-6-23. We refused to answer those…”
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.