Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re the Estate of Olson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 2008No. 24127, 24142Published

1DissentZinter, Justice

[¶ 43.] Glenn’s will, as well as the probate, was governed by the Uniform Probate Code, and the UPC provides a statutory power of sale that was unknown to our pre-existing statutes and the common law. Had Glenn wanted to limit, restrict, or eliminate that power of sale, the UPC requires that Glenn had to provide that limitation in his will. SDCL 29A-3-715(a) (Unif. Probate Code § 3-715 (amended 1997)), 8 U.L.A. 169. Although Glenn failed to do so, today the Court declares that a specific devise of real property is “inconsistent” and in “inherent conflict” with the statutory power of sale and…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Mellen v. . MellenNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Crittenden v. . FairchildNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  3. Da Roza v. FarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Green v. GustafsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Cussack v. . TweedyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891

17 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