In Re Estate of Karnen
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- US West Communications, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- Maynard v. HeerenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Pellegrin v. PellegrinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Tyler v. TylerNebraska Supreme Court · 1997
- Telles v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.