Can a Will Be Partially Valid?

Crouft left millions of dollars to other individuals and “entities” (likely charities). The executor of his estate sought to void the bequest to Hammond while preserving the remainder of the will. The Vermont Supreme Court had not previously ruled on the issue of partial invalidity. While older cases in other states embraced an “all or nothing” approach to validity, the modern trend is otherwise. Vermont followed the latter group, revoking the bequest to Hammond but leaving the rest of Crouft’s estate plan intact. The court agreed with the executor’s view that the decedent would never have made the gift had he been aware of Hammond’s behavior.

CCK COMMENT:

Understandably, the partial invalidity remedy is unavailable in situations where a testator’s lack of competence undermines the whole estate plan. However, the alarming rise in elder abuse, such as Hammon perpetrated is producing a new crop of cases. Unlike classic “undue influence” situations, the voiding of a bequest to an abusive beneficiary does not necessarily require a showing that the bad actor pressured the testator to make the gift. (In this case, there was no direct evidence that Hammond had lobbied Crouft for the option to purchase the home.)  In this case, the elder abuse itself disqualified the offending party from receiving any benefit from the estate. This is analogous to the well-established “slayer rule” that voids any bequest to someone that murdered the testator.