This brief analysis refers to the case Smith v. Smith (2017) that is discussed in our previous blog titled “Divorced Husband Demands Portion of Ex-Wife’s Inheritance.”
The problem in Smith was not the husband. The real problem was the attorney who drafted the Smith Family Trust.
First, the attorney drafted a broad provision in the Trust regarding new bank accounts established by either spouse. In suggesting that new bank accounts would be part of the marital estate, this broad provision was itself poorly-drafted. Second, the attorney then drafted specific provisions regarding a spouse’s potential inheritance. These two provisions were not carefully coordinated. This lack of clear coordinated provisions led directly to the lawsuit.
Worst of all were the attorney’s three additional failures:
This lack of careful work on the part of the Smith’s attorney directly created ambiguity. And ambiguity is the enemy of good estate planning. In this cesspool of ambiguity, the husband and his probate litigator were happily enabled to create a litigation mess. Clarity would have gone a long way in containing the husband and his probate attorney—in perhaps even shutting down the conflict before the case was ever filed in the courts. See Smith v. Smith, 2017 UT App 40.
By Alicia Knight Cunningham
Click here to see Smith v. Smith (2017) UT App 40.
Click here to see our summary of this this case in the blog titled: “Divorced Husband Demands Ex-Wife’s Inheritance.”
2017_smith_v._smith_analysis--utah--divorce_inheritances_and_estate_planning.pdf