Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Estate of Karnen

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 2000No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice

[¶ 36.] It was an abuse of discretion to use a unisex mortality table in determining the present value of Andrew’s life estate.

[¶ 37.] I dissent to the majority opinion’s determination that the use of a unisex mortality table, as opposed to a gender-specific table, is not an abuse of discretion.

[¶ 38.] When dealing with life estates, a present value must be determined. The valuation date is the date of the decedent’s death. SDCL 29A-2-207(b). SDCL 10-40-14 provides how to value the estate:

The value of every future or limited estate, ... dependent upon any life or lives in being, shall be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. US West Communications, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Maynard v. HeerenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Pellegrin v. PellegrinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Tyler v. TylerNebraska Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Telles v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991

1 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