Brenda J. Mongold and Linda L. Mullenax v. Eulda K. Mayle, No. 22379 (W. Va. December 8, 1994) (McHugh, J.): 192 W.Va. 353, 452 S.E.2d 444:
Interpreting the new intestacy and elective-share provisions of the revised uniform probate code for the first time, the Court held that even though a testator executed a premarital will, as provided by W. Va. Code § 42-3-7, a surviving spouse of that testator is not precluded from taking an elective share of the deceased spouse's estate pursuant to W. Va. Code § 42-3-1.
Lois Foy, Herbert V. Jones, Jr., and Shirley Alta Jones v. County Commission of Berkeley County; Eula Jones; and Maria L. Childers, in her capacity as Fiduciary Supervisor of the County Commission of Berkeley County, No. 21831 (W. Va. March 28, 1994) (McHugh, J.): 191 W.Va. 29, 442 S.E.2d 726:
Recognizing that marriage no longer revokes a will pursuant to 1992 amendments to W. Va. Code § 41-1-6, the Court held that, under the circumstances of the instant case, when a decedent executed a will in 1986, married in 1990, and died in 1992, the will was revoked pursuant to the previous provisions of W. Va. Code § 41-1-6.
Mildred Dennis Cary v. Frederic D. Riss, Jr., No. 21562 (W. Va. July 16, 1993) (McHugh, J.): 189 W.Va. 608, 433 S.E.2d 546:
Rejecting an attempt by the decedent's niece to challenge validity of earlier will admitted to probate prior to the refusal to admit to probate a subsequent will submitted by the niece, the Court held that (1) the requirement in W. Va. Code § 41-5-2 that the county clerk notify "by mail or otherwise" the beneficiaries named under any will delivered to the county clerk is statisfied when the beneficiaries have actual notice and (2) nothing requires actual notice to the named beneficiaries of the county commission's refusal to probate a will delivered to the county clerk.
Thomas L. Stockert, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Nelia Zimmerman v. Council on World Service and Finance of the Methodist Church, et al., Elizabeth Coplin Leonard Memorial Hospital, Inc., and St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon, Inc., et al., No. 21150 (W. Va. February 11, 1993) (Neely, J.): 189 W.Va. 1, 427 S.E.2d 236:
Where beneficiary of a will ceased operating as a hospital after the testator's death, the Court reversed the trial court's refusal to apply the doctrine of cy pres, holding that when a charitable institution to which a bequest has been made for charitable purposes loses its character or otherwise ceases to exist after the death of the testator, and when the testator has manifested a general charitable intent in the will, a court of equity, under the doctrine of cy pres, will direct the application of the bequeathed property in question to another charity of the same general character so that the charitable purposes of the testator will not fail.
Geraldine C. Watson and Virginia Paletti, Co-Executrices of the Estate of Frank Cirigliano v. Pasquale Santalucia, et al., John T. Law, Marino Paletti, and Teresa Calabrese, No. 21221 (W. Va. February 11, 1993) (Neely, J.): 189 W.Va. 32, 427 S.E.2d 466:
Deciding the distribution of shares of stock which had split shortly before the testator's death, the Court held that in the absence of anything manifesting a contrary intention, a legatee of stock is entitled to any additional shares received by the testator as the result of a stock split occurring in the interval between the execution of a will and the death of the testator.
William David Lieving, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Roberta LaVaughn Lieving, and William David Lieving, Individually v. Thelma E. Hadley; Union Bank of Tyler County, a corporation; and First National Bank of St. Mary's, N.A., No. 20738 (W. Va. October 22, 1992) (Neely, J.): 188 W.Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600:
Reversing summary judgment in favor of the husband of the deceased who, at the time of her death, owned certain shares of stock as a joint tenant with the right of survivorship, the Court held (1) one who takes by inheritance or by gift is not a bona fide purchaser under Section 8-302 of the UCC, but merely a purchaser under Section 8-301 of the UCC, and (2) although there is a strong statutory presumption in favor of construing joint tenancies as in common without a right of survivorship, that presumption can be overcome with clear and convincing evidence that the intention of the parties was to creation a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.
In re: Renunciation of Will of Fred B. Sayre in Behalf of Audrey Landfried Sayre, No. 20586 (W. Va. February 27, 1992) (Workman, J.): 187 W.Va. 22, 415 S.E.2d 263:
Where surviving spouse died prior to completion of renunciation proceedings, the Court held that where renunciation proceedings are commenced prior to the death of a surviving spouse, the renunciation may nevertheless proceed to confirmation.
Arthur D. Clark, Executor of the Estate of William Walter Clark v. Carolyn Studenwalt, etc., et al., No. 20475 (W. Va. June 29, 1992) (Workman, J.): 187 W.Va. 368, 419 S.E.2d 308:
Validating a holographic will that was not signed at the foot of the document, the Court held that the procurement of attesting witnesses renders valid a holographic will that does not bear a signature at the end, but includes the testator's name, in his own hand, at the beginning.
Charles H. Cale, Okey P. Cale, Patricia A. McLaughlin, Robert L. Cale, Wilma Elder, and William F. Cale v. Sara E. Napier, Floyd J. Cale, Ada I. Morrison, Robert B. Blake, etc., et al., No. 20000 (W. Va. December 6, 1991) (Miller, C.J.): 186 W.Va. 244, 412 S.E.2d 242:
Reversing a directed verdict in a will contest case, the Court held that (1) advanced age or physical or mental infirmities of the testator can be shown to establish that undue influence was exerted, and (2) evidence is admissible in an undue influence case to show that the testator had previously either expressed an intention to make a contrary disposition of the property or had a prior will which made a disposition contrary to that of the contested will.
R. Wayne Rodgers, Administrator of the Estate of Hazlett M. Rodgers, Sr.; and R. Wayne Rodgers, Administrator of the Estate of Myrtle L. Rodgers, et al. v. Hazlett M. Rodgers, Jr., and John T. Rodgers, No. 19596 (W. Va. November 13, 1990) (Miller, J.): 184 W.Va. 82, 399 S.E.2d 664:
Where a beneficiary challenged the administration of an estate more than ten years following the death of the decedent, but only one year following the filing of an appraisal, the Court held that where an individual occupies a fiduciary relationship to an estate and claims ownership to estate assets not conveyed by will or intestacy, a beneficiary cannot be charged with knowledge of such claim until an appraisement has been filed. Moreover, where a father purchased stock in the names of his children, but exercised complete dominion and control, the Court reaffirmed its holding in Syl. pt. 6, Tompkies v. Tompkies, 158 W. Va. 872, 215 S.E.2d 652 (1975), that in order to sustain a parol gift, it must be shown by clear and convincing proof that the donor made delivery and relinquished all dominion and control over the thing delivered.
Imogene Williams, Executrix of the Estate of Fred Brown Sayre, and Imogene Williams, Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of Fred Brown Sayre v. Larry L. Skeen, Committee for Audrey Landfried Sayre, an incompetent, et al., No. 19602 (W. Va. November 9, 1990) (Workman, J.): 184 W.Va. 509, 401 S.E.2d 442:
In explaining the procedure for renunciation of a will on behalf of an incompetent spouse, the Court held that a circuit court is the proper forum to determine whether a will renunciation proposed by the committee of an incompetent will inure to the ward's benefit and, accordingly, whether such renunciation should be confirmed. On a related issue, the Court held that the eight-month period of limitations for renouncing a will is tolled by its filing, and that confirmation by a circuit court is not required within this same period.