- 11 -11
the cases decided in accord with it are all instances
of this kind. * * *
The basis of the family agreement was therefore not the
standing of an heir or heirs to contest the will as a
whole, or of a beneficiary under a previous will to
question a provision of a later will. Rather, it was
the standing of each, as a beneficiary under the
executed will, to agree upon a disposition of the
property bequeathed and devised to all of them
thereunder in a manner different from that provided in
the will.
The resulting agreement was nothing more than a
voluntary rearrangement of property interests acquired under
an admittedly valid will, concluded without duress of
unsatisfied claims. * * * [Commissioner v. Estate of Vease,
supra at 86-87; emphasis added; fn. ref. omitted.]
There is evidence in the record to support both
interpretations, a "bona fide challenge" and a "voluntary
rearrangement of property interests". However, we are not forced
to choose between them as respondent has, in effect, already
conceded this issue in the pleadings in which she admits:
5a. * * * As a substitute for a bequest of
property from Fulvio Suvich to Maria F. Marcus and in
settlement of all claims which Maria F. Marcus had
against the estate of Fulvio Suvich (the "Estate"), his
heirs agreed to pay Maria F. Marcus a portion of the
Estate when and as it was liquidated. The estate
settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement") was
evidenced by a written agreement dated August, 1980.
[Emphasis added.]
5b. In 1990, Maria F. Marcus received US
$37,898.00 from the Estate pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.
We will not ignore pleadings of fact that are not directly
contradicted by the record: "Such admissions of fact are binding
upon this Court and the parties to the action." Shea Co. v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011