Can a Will Be Partially Valid?

Typically, a will is either valid or it is not. In Estate of Donald Crouft, 2024 Vt. 8, ____A.3d ____ (Vt. 2024), the Supreme Court of Vermont followed other states in recognizing the possibility of partial invalidity in some situations.

During Crouft’s final years, Hammond lived with him and provided caretaking services. Hammond was also secretly helping himself to a sizable portion of the testator’s bank account. In the will, Crouft gave Hammond the option to purchase his home for $40,000, well below market.

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.

POST-SCRIPT: In the will, Crouft permitted Hammond to live in the house until he (or someone else) bought it. After the decision reported herein (which was issued in late February 2024), Hammond continued to occupy the residence. At the request of the executor, the court evicted him a few months later.

This blog was originally posted on our LinkedIn on July 17, 2024.