District of Columbia v. Estate of Parsons
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
FARRELL, Associate Judge:
This appeal asks us to decide whether the words “and other personal property,” as used in the will of testatrix Evelyn Parsons, constitute a residuary clause embracing a lapsed bequest of money to the testatrix’ sister made elsewhere in the will, or rather, as the District of Columbia (the District) contends, the will contains no residuary clause and the lapsed bequest of money escheats to the District by operation of law. The trial judge, applying the rule of construction favoring interpretation of a will so as to avoid intestacy (whole or partial), found the phrase…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Given v. HiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Wyman v. RoesnerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- Baker v. National Savings and Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- LeRoy v. KirkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Thomas v. CopenhaverSupreme Court of Virginia · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In Re Estate of CorrieaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
- In Re GreenspanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Fay v. PerlesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Kriesch v. JohannsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- In Re Estate of TurpinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.