- 34 -
the promissory note less $30,000 (to reflect three annual
exclusions).13
Petitioner suggests vaguely that Melba might have acquired
an interest in the promissory note, presumably after decedent’s
revocation of the grantor trust (since the grantor trust
contained no provision whereby Melba might acquire any interest
in any trust property) but before the assignment of the note to
decedent’s three children. There is no evidence in the record,
however, to support this suggestion, which is undermined by the
contemporariness of the transfers of the note out of the grantor
trust and to decedent’s three children, and by the antenuptial
agreement between decedent and Melba, which states decedent’s
desire that his children should receive his separate property
“unaffected by the marriage of the parties hereto”.
Petitioner also suggests that Melba’s joining in on the
execution of the warranty deed conveying the Lake Catherine
property to the Manesses and on the assignment of the note to
three of decedent’s children shows that she had an interest in
the Lake Catherine property and the promissory note. We are
unpersuaded by petitioner’s argument. We believe it more likely
that, pursuant to the terms of the antenuptial agreement, Melba
signed these legal documents as a mere formality, without thereby
13 Petitioner does not contend that the conditions of the
gift-splitting provisions of sec. 2513 have been met here.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011