Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions
- Notes on Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- 1 Introduction to the Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions Project
- 2 Commentary on In re Strittmater’s Estate
- 3 Commentary on In re Will of Moses
- 4 Commentary on In re Estate of Wilson
- 5 Commentary on O’Neal v. Wilkes
- 6 Commentary on Via v. Putnam
- 7 Commentary on In re Estate of Myers
- 8 Commentary on Egelhoff v. Egelhoff
- 9 Commentary on Drevenik v. Nardone
- 10 Commentary on Reece v. Elliott
- 11 Commentary on Khabbaz v. Commissioner
- 12 Commentary on Karsenty v. Schoukroun
- Index
12 - Commentary on Karsenty v. Schoukroun
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 August 2020
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions
- Notes on Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- 1 Introduction to the Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions Project
- 2 Commentary on In re Strittmater’s Estate
- 3 Commentary on In re Will of Moses
- 4 Commentary on In re Estate of Wilson
- 5 Commentary on O’Neal v. Wilkes
- 6 Commentary on Via v. Putnam
- 7 Commentary on In re Estate of Myers
- 8 Commentary on Egelhoff v. Egelhoff
- 9 Commentary on Drevenik v. Nardone
- 10 Commentary on Reece v. Elliott
- 11 Commentary on Khabbaz v. Commissioner
- 12 Commentary on Karsenty v. Schoukroun
- Index
Summary
We are asked, in this case, to decide whether an inter vivos transfer, in which a deceased spouse retained control over the transferred property during his lifetime, constitutes a per se violation of the surviving spouse’s statutory elective right to a percentage of the deceased spouse’s net estate under Maryland Code, Estates and Trusts Article, §3–203.1 The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County held that it does not, concluding that the decedent did not intend to defraud his surviving spouse when he transferred assets to a revocable trust that he created for his daughter from a first marriage. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court in a reported opinion, Schoukroun v. Karsenty, 177 Md.App. 615, 937 A.2d 262 (2007), in which it held that the decedent’s retained control of the transferred assets rendered the transfer a fraud per se on the surviving spouse’s marital rights. We granted the trustee’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Karsenty v. Schoukroun, 404 Md. 152, 945 A.2d 1270 (2008).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist JudgmentsRewritten Trusts and Estates Opinions, pp. 220 - 245Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020