2019 COA 82
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mark M. King had a premarital pourover will and revocable trust (originally executed 2000; amended by multiple codicils) and did not amend them after marrying Julie M. King (ten months before his death).
- Six weeks before marrying Julie, Mark obtained a $5,000,000 life insurance policy and designated Julie to receive $4,000,000 (another friend was to receive $1,000,000); he later (post‑marriage) clarified the beneficiary designation to reflect her married name.
- Julie received approximately $4,462,806 outside the will: roughly $4,000,000 life insurance proceeds and about $52,000 from joint bank accounts (the estate also paid her ~$410,806 from retirement plans, which the magistrate did not ultimately rely upon).
- Julie petitioned under Colorado’s omitted‑spouse statute (§ 15‑11‑301) claiming she was unintentionally omitted from the will and thus entitled to an intestate share; the personal representative and decedent’s children argued the omission was intentional because Mark provided for her outside the will.
- The magistrate found the transfers (primarily the $4,000,000 life policy and joint accounts) were substantial and supported a reasonable inference that Mark intended to provide for Julie outside his will; denied the omitted‑spouse claim.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding § 15‑11‑301(1)(c) permits a court to infer intent from the amount and other evidence of transfers and applying factors from prior case law to uphold the magistrate’s inference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 15‑11‑301 precludes an omitted‑spouse share when the testator provided sizable transfers outside the will | Julie: She was unintentionally omitted from the will and is entitled to an omitted‑spouse intestate share | Estate: Mark provided for Julie outside the will (life insurance, joint accounts, retirement funds), so the omitted‑spouse statute does not apply | Court: Affirmed — section 15‑11‑301(1)(c) allows reasonable inference of intent from transfer amount and other evidence; Julie was not an omitted spouse |
| Whether the court may infer intent from transfers made before marriage | Julie: Transfers before marriage cannot reliably show intent to replace testamentary provision | Estate: A pre‑marriage transfer (later ratified) can show intent if substantial and corroborated by other evidence | Court: Permitted — form/timing of transfer is not dispositive; substantial transfers can be inferred to be in lieu of testamentary provision |
| Burden allocation under § 15‑11‑301 | Julie: Magistrate impermissibly shifted burden to her to disprove intent | Estate: Once spouse shows omission from will, proponents must prove an exception; if they do, spouse can rebut | Court: Agreed with estate’s framework — spouse proves omission, proponents must prove exception, spouse may then rebut; no improper shift occurred |
| Proper factors to assess intent under § 15‑11‑301(1)(c) | Julie: Transfers here were insufficient to show intent given marriage duration and estate plan | Estate: Size of transfers, re‑designation after marriage, short marriage, and other evidence support inference of intent | Court: Adopted Christensen factors (and two refinements) and found the life insurance + joint accounts supported a reasonable inference of intent to provide outside the will |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawry v. Palm, 192 P.3d 550 (Colo. App. 2008) (standard for mixed questions of fact and law and appellate review of trial court findings)
- Estate of Christensen v. Christensen, 655 P.2d 646 (Utah 1982) (lists factors to determine whether transfers were intended to replace testamentary provision)
- Estate of Keeven, 716 P.2d 1224 (Idaho 1986) (focus on whether transfers were so minimal as to indicate failure to provide for spouse)
- In re Estate of Taggart, 619 P.2d 562 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980) (life insurance, joint accounts and other transfers may show intent to provide for surviving spouse)
- In re Estate of Beaman, 583 P.2d 270 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978) (transfers before or after marriage may preclude omitted‑spouse recovery when intended to take the place of a will provision)
- In re Estate of Knudsen, 342 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1984) (life insurance and joint‑tenancy arrangements can constitute transfers under omitted‑spouse rules)