AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The deceased executed a will that disinherited her grandson if he was married to or living with a specific individual, Deborah Cornett, at the time of her death. Upon her passing, the grandson was married to and living with Cornett. The will named another individual as the sole heir under these circumstances.

Procedural History

• District Court, July 3, 1990: The court admitted the will to probate, appointed the sole heir as the personal representative of the estate, and determined that the sole heir was the only beneficiary. The court reserved judgment on the grandson's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement.
• District Court, October 2, 1990: The court denied the grandson's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and his motion to set aside the July 3, 1990, order.
• District Court, October 31, 1990: The court issued an order of complete settlement of the estate, distributing all assets to the sole heir.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Grandson): Argued that the will's condition disinheriting him was void as against public policy because it encouraged separation or divorce. He also sought to enforce an alleged settlement agreement and to set aside the order admitting the will to probate.
• Appellee (Sole Heir): Contended that the will's condition was valid and enforceable, as it did not induce separation or divorce. She also argued that the alleged settlement agreement was not enforceable.

Legal Issues

• Was the district court's denial of the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement a final, appealable order?
• Did the district court err in denying the motion to set aside the order admitting the will to probate?
• Was the will's condition disinheriting the grandson void as against public policy?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders.

Reasons

Per Hartz J. (Chavez and Flores JJ. concurring):

• The denial of the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement was a final, appealable order because it resolved all issues raised in the proceeding initiated by the petition for formal probate. The grandson's appeal of this order was untimely, but the court reviewed the record and found no reversible error.
• The district court did not err in denying the motion to set aside the order admitting the will to probate. The court had jurisdiction to admit the will, even if the condition was void as against public policy. The grandson's argument under Section 45-3-1001(D) was inapplicable because no omitted heirs or devisees were identified.
• The court did not address the merits of the public policy argument regarding the will's condition, as it was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.