Late MU Professor's Ex-Wife to Claim Former Husband’s Estate

February 9, 2007

Arkham Advertiser

The Court of Appeals of Massachusetts has received a motion that a will executed before a couple divorced and divided their property was still valid when the ex-husband died five years later. Miller, et al. v. Derby (Mass. Ct. App., No. 2000-CA-01779-COA, Feb. 7, 2007).

In 1998, Michael and Caroline Miller created wills leaving everything to each other. The couple divorced in February 2002. As part of the divorce, the Millers divided their property but made no mention of the wills. Mr. Miller, professor at Miskatonic University, died this past January without ever canceling the 1998 will or executing a new one. The day after his death, the former Mrs. Miller, now Derby, filed her ex-husband's will for probate and began efforts to claim his estate. Mr. Miller's employer and two of his colleagues filed suit alleging that the divorce and property settlement had made the will invalid, and that in 2003 Mr. Miller had left unofficial notice of the dispersal of his property in the event of his death. The trial court ruled that the will was still valid.

The University and colleagues appealed, pointing out that in some states, a divorce accompanied by a property settlement agreement automatically revokes either spouse's pre-divorce will. They also argued that Prof. Millers' true intention was to revoke his prior will as a part of the divorce because he and his ex-wife lived apart following the divorce and they both had other romantic relationships, and that Mr. Miller wished his belongings to be donated to the Miskatonic Children's Association. Finally, the University and colleagues said Ms. Derby was violating the couple’s property settlement agreement, which was supposed to settle all property rights or claims between them.

The Court of Appeals of Massachusetts will review the decision of the lower court that the will was still valid. Ms. Derby's legal counsel comments that Mr. Miller’s intentions towards his ex-wife were unclear. There was evidence that he continued some form of relationship with his former wife and expressed concern for her future economic well-being as recently as 2005. Moreover, although the original will remained untouched for five years after the divorce, Mr. Miller made no effort during that time to cancel it, and disputed the fact that he had executed a new one. Finally, the court will consider the argument that Ms. Derby breached the property settlement agreement, and that the will is like a gift from Mr. Miller to his former wife—a gift that he had every opportunity to revoke but did not.