Also known as:advancement · advancements · laws of advancement · advancement doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine providing that an inter vivos gift from a decedent to an individual who is an heir at death is credited against the heir's intestate share. The doctrine applies only when the decedent declared in a contemporaneous writing or the heir acknowledged in writing that the gift constitutes an advancement or is to be taken into account in dividing the estate.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Written Declaration Required
Luna Lang gave her adult son Lucas Lee $150,000 during her lifetime to start a business. Luna died intestate survived by Lucas and two other children. Luna had executed a contemporaneous writing stating the gift was an advancement. The personal representative deducted the $150,000 from Lucas's one-third intestate share before distribution.
Acknowledgment by Heir
Doris Dean gave her niece Nora North $75,000 to buy a home. Doris died intestate survived by Nora and two siblings. Nora had signed a writing acknowledging the gift would reduce her intestate share. The personal representative credited the amount against Nora's share in the distribution.
Latoya Lane transferred $200,000 to her daughter Levi Lowe two years before death. Lane executed a signed letter at the time of the transfer stating the amount would reduce the daughter's future intestate share. After Lane died intestate, the estate properly treated the transfer as an advancement when calculating shares among the heirs.
Gift to Surviving Spouse
Oscar Ortiz gave his wife Olivia Ortiz $90,000 during marriage to purchase investment property. Oscar died intestate survived by Olivia and two children from a prior marriage. A contemporaneous writing declared the transfer an advancement. The estate offset the amount against Olivia's intestate share.
Newman v. Dore9 N.E.2d 966 (N.Y. 1937)
Ferdinand Straus died on July 1, 1934, leaving a last will and testament dated May 5, 1934, which contained a provision for a trust for his wife for her life of one-third of the decedent’s property both real and personal. On June 28, 1934, three days before his death, he executed trust agreements by which, in form at least, he transferred to trustees all his real and personal property.
The beneficiary named in the trust agreement brought this action to compel the trustees to carry out its terms. The widow challenged the validity of the transfer to the trustees.
The trial court found that the trust agreements were made, executed and delivered by said Ferdinand Straus for the purpose of evading and circumventing the laws of the State of New York, and particularly sections 18 and 83 of the Decedent Estate Law. The trial court also found that the settlor reserved the enjoyment of the entire income as long as he should live, and a right to revoke the trust at his will, and in general the powers granted to the trustees were in terms made subject to the settlor’s control during his life.
Peter Price gave his granddaughter Gina Price $40,000 for college. Peter died intestate after his child (Gina's parent) predeceased him. A signed writing at the time of the gift stated it was an advancement. The personal representative applied the doctrine when computing Gina's share among the heirs.
Fisher v. United States328 U.S. 463 (1946)
In March 1944 petitioner Fisher, the janitor at the library of the Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Washington, D.C., killed librarian Catherine Cooper Reardon inside the library building between eight and nine o'clock on the morning of March 1.
Reardon had complained a few days earlier to the verger about Fisher's care of the premises, and the verger had informed Fisher of the complaint.
Fisher and Reardon were alone in the library at the time of the homicide.
Fisher testified that Reardon spoke insulting words about his work, after which he slapped her impulsively.
He ran up a flight of steps toward an exit but turned back, seized a stick of firewood, struck her, and when the stick broke choked her to silence.
He then dragged her to a lavatory and left the body to clean up some spots of blood on the floor outside.
While Fisher was doing this cleaning up, the victim started hollering again.
Fisher then took out his knife and stuck her in the throat.
After that he dragged her body down into an adjoining pump pit, where it was found the next morning.
Fisher's accounts of the events varied.
His original confession made no reference to insulting words from Reardon.
His written confession mentioned them, and his trial testimony amplified their effect on him.
In the written confession he admitted his main reason for assaulting her was that she had reported him for not cleaning the floor.
The Deputy Coroner testified that the knife wound was not deep and only went through the skin.
Defense psychiatrists testified that Fisher was a psychopathic personality of a predominantly aggressive type, mentally somewhat below average, with minor stigmata of mental subnormalcy, and that he was unable by reason of a deranged mental condition to resist the impulse to kill.
The prosecution introduced competent evidence that Fisher was capable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts.
All evidence offered by the defense was received by the trial court.
Fisher was tried in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia on an indictment charging killing by choking and strangling with deliberate and premeditated malice.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the first count, and the court imposed a sentence of death.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the judgment and sentence.
Victor Vale named his son Sam Vale beneficiary of a life-insurance policy and executed a contemporaneous writing treating the future proceeds as an advancement. Victor died intestate survived by Sam and one other child. The estate credited the policy proceeds against Sam's intestate share under the doctrine.
Shenandoah Valley National Bank v. Taylor63 S.E.2d 786 (Va. 1951)
Charles B. Henry, a resident of Winchester, Virginia, died testate on April 23, 1949. His will dated April 21, 1949, was admitted to probate and the Shenandoah Valley National Bank of Winchester qualified as the designated executor and trustee.
Subject to two inconsequential provisions, Henry's entire estate valued at $86,000 was left in trust to be known as the Charles B. Henry and Fannie Belle Henry Fund. The trustee was directed to invest and reinvest the estate, collect the income, and on the last school day before Easter and before Christmas each year divide the net income into equal parts and pay one part to each child then enrolled in the first, second, and third grades of the John Kerr School in Winchester, with the payments to be used by each child in the furtherance of his or her education.
The John Kerr School is a public primary school with an enrollment of approximately 458 pupils. If the school were discontinued, payments would be made instead to children in the same grades of any successor school or schools as determined by the Winchester School Board. The trustee was granted broad power and discretion to retain, sell, invest, and reinvest estate assets as it deemed in the best interest of the trust.
Henry left no children or near relatives. His heirs and distributees upon intestacy were first cousins and more remote kin. One next of kin filed suit against the executor and trustee challenging the trust provisions. The bill alleged that the trust did not constitute a charitable trust and was invalid because it violated the rule against perpetuities. Other heirs joined the suit and sought to have the trust declared void with the estate distributed among the next of kin.
The cause was heard on the bill and a demurrer filed by the executor and trustee. The demurrer was overruled and decrees were entered adjudicating the principles of the cause. From those decrees this appeal was awarded.
What written evidence is required to treat a lifetime gift as an advancement?
The decedent must declare in a contemporaneous writing or the heir must acknowledge in writing that the gift is an advancement or is to be taken into account in computing the intestate shares. A later writing by the decedent alone is insufficient.
Supporting sources
Must the recipient be a child of the decedent for the advancement doctrine to apply?
No. The doctrine applies to any individual who is an heir at the decedent's death, which may include a surviving spouse, grandchild, or other relative depending on the intestacy statute.
Supporting sources
How is the value of an advancement determined?
The property is valued as of the time the heir came into possession or enjoyment or as of the decedent's death, whichever occurs first.
Supporting sources
How is the value of an advancement determined when the gift is a will substitute?
The property is valued as of the time the heir came into possession or enjoyment or as of the decedent's death, whichever occurs first, and the doctrine applies to will substitutes such as life-insurance beneficiary designations when the required writing exists.
Supporting sources
497 U.S. 261, 277 (1990)
…decision not to terminate results in a maintenance of the status quo ; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient’s intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of…