Also known as: doctrine of advancement · advancement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of intestate succession under which a lifetime gift from a decedent to an heir is deducted from the heir's share of the estate. The deduction applies only when the decedent declared in a contemporaneous writing or the heir acknowledged in writing that the gift operates as an advancement.
Anita Ali died intestate survived by her two children. During life she transferred $150,000 to her son Austin Abbott to start a business and sent him a letter stating the funds were part of his future inheritance. Austin signed a receipt acknowledging the letter. The estate totals $300,000. The transfer is treated as an advancement so Austin's share is reduced by the gift amount before equal division with his sister.
Bob Baker died intestate survived by his spouse and one child. During life he gave his spouse $90,000 and obtained her signed writing acknowledging the sum would reduce her intestate share. The estate totals $270,000. The gift is treated as an advancement so the spouse's portion is offset before the remainder is divided with the child.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Anika Anand died intestate leaving two heirs. Years earlier she gave her daughter Audrey Ashton $80,000 and later wrote a note stating the sum should reduce Audrey's eventual share. The note was made at the time of the gift. The writing satisfies the statutory condition so the gift counts as an advancement against Audrey's intestate portion.
Carl Clark died intestate survived by a sibling and a niece. Years before death he transferred $40,000 to the niece and declared in a signed writing that the sum was an advancement. The estate totals $160,000. The doctrine reduces the niece's share by the gift before equal division with the sibling.
Doris Diaz died intestate survived by a grandchild after the intervening child predeceased. During life she gave the grandchild $25,000 and declared in a contemporaneous writing that the amount was an advancement. The estate totals $100,000. The gift offsets the grandchild's share even though the grandchild was not an heir apparent at the time of the transfer.
Edward Ellis died intestate survived by three children. He had given one child $60,000 with a contemporaneous writing declaring it an advancement. The estate totals $300,000. Adding the advancement back into the estate for calculation yields equal $120,000 shares after the offset is applied to the recipient child.
The UPC requires either a contemporaneous writing by the decedent declaring the gift an advancement or a written acknowledgment by the heir. Language indicating the gift is to be taken into account in dividing the estate is sufficient even without the word advancement.
Supporting sources
The property is valued as of the time the heir took possession or the decedent's death whichever occurs first. The value is then subtracted from the heir's intestate share before final distribution.
Supporting sources
No. Under the UPC the doctrine applies to any person who is an heir at the decedent's death including a surviving spouse or collateral relative. The recipient need not have been an heir apparent when the gift was made.
Supporting sources
No. The decedent's writing must be contemporaneous with the gift. A later change of mind does not transform a completed gift into an advancement.
Supporting sources
…prevailed: " Charity' in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads." See also Restatement…