Legal Opinion · Dissent

Polen v. Baker

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 22, 2001No. 00-1274Published

1DissentMoyer, C.J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority decision holding that the residuary clause expresses an intention to provide per capita *570distribution to the surviving named beneficiaries and that R.C. 2107.52(B) is inapplicable. The law regarding the lapsing of testamentary gifts is well established, and the majority’s opinion does not comport with it.

R.C. 2107.52(B) provides that “[ujnless a contrary intention is manifested in the will, if a devise of real property or a bequest of personal property is made to a relative of a testator and the relative was dead at the time the will was made or dies…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Tootle v. TootleOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Ohio National Bank v. AdairOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Detzel v. NieberdingHamilton County Probate Court · 1966
  4. Ohio National Bank v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Martin v. SummersOhio Court of Appeals · 1995

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