Blog

Factual Background:

In 1988, husband and wife signed a will, which included a provision not to revoke the will unless both parties agreed.  Husband and wife were divorced in 2008.  Husband died in 2009, and wife filed an Application for Probate of Will and Application for Letters Testamentary.  Husband’s daughter filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that wife had no standing in the estate, and she filed an Application for Letters.

Jasper County Circuit Court, J. Mouton, Held: 

The circuit court determined that a contract to make a will and not revoke the will had been established in accordance with 474.155, but there was no agreement as to potential divorce between the parties.  The court ordered that all provisions in the will concerning wife, including her right to serve as personal representative, were revoked by operation of 474.420.  The court appointed husband’s daughter as personal representative and denied wife’s application for letters testamentary, and wife appealed.

Court of Appeals, J. Francis Jr., Held:

Affirmed.  Wife is arguing that section 474.155 allows her to circumvent section 474.420 in this case, but there is no support for this contention.  Section 474.420 clearly provides that “if after making a will the testator is divorced, all provisions in the will in favor of the testator’s spouse are thereby revoked.”  The legislature was aware of section 474.420 when it enacted 474.155, and if the legislature had intended to exclude the application of 474.420 when applying 474.155, it easily could have added such an exception.  It did not.  Unless two statutes are irreconcilably inconsistent, both must stand.  Sections 474.420 and 474.155 are not in conflict; therefore, the court must enforce the law as it is written.  Additionally, the law favors a statutory interpretation that tends to avoid unreasonable results.  If wife was allowed to retain the property awarded to her in the divorce and also allowed to receive husband’s estate, this would result in an inequitable windfall in favor of wife because she has already received her share of the marital property in the divorce.