Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Billings v. Billings, Sr.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided October 14, 2011No. 2010-055Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Reiber, C.J.,

¶ 32. concurring and dissenting. I agree with the majority’s holding that a beneficial interest in a revocable trust is essentially equivalent to an interest in a will, and therefore a mere “expectancy” that must be excluded from the marital estate. Ante, ¶ 18. I disagree with its corollary holding that such an “expectancy” may nevertheless be considered in dividing the marital property. If speculative interests of this nature are unworthy of being included within the marital estate, I see no grounds for their legitimate consideration in assessing a party’s “opportunity ... for…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rubin v. RubinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  2. Krause v. KrauseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
  3. Powell v. PowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Mizzi v. MizziSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  5. In Re the Marriage of BeadleMontana Supreme Court · 1998

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API