Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bell v. Estate of Bell

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 21, 2008No. 27,392Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMichael D. Bustamante, Judge

{38} I concur in all of the majority opinion except Section B. In Section B the majority refuses to allow the Trust to be used to help satisfy Mrs. Bell’s claims under the omitted spouse statute on the theory that it should not be deemed a “statutory allowance” under Section 46A-5-505(A)(3). The majority asserts that using Trust assets to satisfy the obligation created by the omitted spouse statute would “artificially” enlarge the probate estate; the majority refuses to do so as a matter of policy.

{39} I do not share the majority’s concern or view. If the legislature intended omitted spouses…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nelson v. JuseniusCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API