Court Opinion

ID: 9717071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:57:16.533092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:51.032525
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Judge,
concurring.
Even if there had been an oral antenup-tial agreement between Ira Edington and Ernestine, which the trial court found not to be the case, such could not operate as a waiver of Ernestine's right to elect to take against the will. The statute clearly requires such waivers to be in writing and signed by the party waiving that right. IND.CODE 29-1-8-6. This court clearly has held that a wife's oral agreement with her husband was not a valid waiver of her rights in his estate. Bohnke v. Estate of Bohnke (1983), Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 446, trans. denied. Our probate code further requires a waiver of the intestate share or other expectancy of a spouse or any other heir to be in writing. IND.CODE 29-1-2-13. The alleged oral antenuptial agree ment could not be valid for this purpose. Bohnke. Thus, never having signed any written waiver of her right of election, or having entered into any written agreement waiving such right, Ernestine did not preclude herself from electing to take against the will.
I also concur that the trial court's decision that there was no oral antenuptial agreement should be upheld, but it makes no difference because the oral agreement, had there been one, could not constitute a valid waiver of Ernestine's right to election.