Court Opinion

ID: 9706895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:54:33.402806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:25.763462
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I am not persuaded that when the testator caused his will to be prepared and used the words “gross estate” therein, that he was thinking in terms of his estate as computed for federal estate tax purposes, or intended that his first wife would receive one-third of the total so computed. Moreover, interpreting the *458words “gross estate” in such a manner (which is what the lower court did and said so and what this Court does without saying so) could lead to an unfair and unrealistic result, if not in this case then in one that may come tomorrow.
For instance, if the testator at the time of his death held title to property jointly with his first wife with the right of survivorship attached, title to this property Avould pass completely to the first wife by operation of Pennsylvania law. Its total value would also be included in the computation of the value of the estate for federal estate tax purposes. Under the Majority’s construction of the present will, the first wife would receive not only complete title to the property involved but, in addition, one-third of its value as her share of the gross estate as computed for federal tax purposes. In other words, she would receive four-thirds of the value of the one property. I cannot conceive that the testator intended any such thing.
I dissent.