Seifert v. Sanders
West Virginia Supreme Court
1DissentNeely, Justice
I dissent to the majority’s holding today simply because I find that their conclusions run contrary to the intent of both testators in their irrevocable joint will. It is reasonable for married couples to make wills where each leaves the surviving spouse property for life, with the power to invade the corpus, but providing that whatever is leftover shall pass to specific beneficiaries. The holding of the majority today is precisely what the Sanders feared would result if they did not enter into a joint will equally dividing their estate among their heirs. Both parties consented to this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Tutunjian v. VetzigianNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Ferguson v. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1951
- BURLINGTON COUNTY NAT. BANK, MEDFORD v. BraddockNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
- Wetzel v. WatsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1985