Nassif v. Green
18 A.3d 1018
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Decedent Walter L. Green died in 1993, survived by Nassif (spouse), Carlton Green (son) and Anne Fotos (daughter).
- Nassif elected a statutory one-third share of the net estate under ET § 3-203; estate assets were complex and valued around $30 million.
- The estate included real properties, closely held businesses, stock portfolios, partnerships, and loans with RTC exposure; numerous ancillary administrations existed.
- In 2000, the orphans' court distributed specific bequests (Sunoco station, McDonald’s, Nations Bank stock) and Nassif’s elective share was satisfied from those distributions; Nassif did not appeal.
- A 2006 declaratory judgment action sought to settle valuation and distribution issues related to Nassif’s elective share, including cash-out and income questions; trial court issued rulings in 2008 and 2009.
- This appeal challenges how ‘net estate,’ enforceable claims, valuation date, income sharing, and the 2000 orders affect Nassif’s statutory share.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of enforceable claims in net estate | Enforceable = paid or payable claims; not merely filed/allowed. | Enforceable claims equal all filed claims capable of enforcement. | Enforceable claims means paid or payable; double deduction issue mooted. |
| Valuation date for Nassif's elective share | Assets should be valued as of distribution date. | Assets should be valued as of the election date for cash-out purposes. | Valuation date depends on cash-out; assets cashed out valued at election date; otherwise valued at distribution. |
| Cash-out under ET § 3-208(b) timing and effect | Cash-out allowed and should reflect pre-2003 interpretation; no time limit should be implied. | Cash-out can be used but must reflect pre-2003 language and is not time-limited by statute. | Cash-out may occur without a time limit; it affects only the cashed-out assets and not overall valuation. |
| Income sharing by electing spouse under the Uniform Principal and Income Act | Electing spouse entitled to income on net estate; Act applies to pre- and post-2000 estates. | Act does not apply to this pre-Oct 1, 2000 estate or to electing spouses as heirs/legatees prior to amendments. | Electing spouse entitled to income during administration; Act applies conceptually to heirs/legatees including electing spouses; income sharing preserved. |
| Effect of 2000 orphans' court order on revisiting bequests | 2000 order should be revisitable to adjust valuations/distributions for Nassif's share. | 2000 orders were final as to specific bequests and cannot be revisited; res judicata implications apply. | Orders final as to specific bequests; cannot be revisited; valuation/distribution of those bequests affirmed within scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. Mercantile Trust Co., 164 Md. 280 (Md. 1933) (electing spouse income historically recognized; pre-1969 treatment)
- Hall v. Elliott, 236 Md. 196 (Md. 1964) (prior rule on co-ownership and allocation of property to spouse)
- Solís v. Schueneman, 112 Md. App. 572 (Md. 1996) (pre-1969 elective/ intestate framework; dower context)
- Snyder v. Jones, 99 Md. 693 (Md. 1904) (curtesy/dower origin in Maryland law)
- Banashak v. Wittstadt, 167 Md. App. 627 (Md. 2006) (finality of orders and appealability in accountings)
- Frater v. Paris, 156 Md. App. 716 (Md. 2004) (statutory interpretation of elective share and income)
- Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Berrett, 395 Md. 439 (Md. 2006) (summary judgment standard and appellate review)