Connection lost
Server error
In Re Estate of Anton Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An attorney-in-fact sold specifically devised property to pay for the testator’s care. The court held the bequest was not adeemed because the testator was unaware of the sale, making it an involuntary act. The beneficiary was entitled to the traceable proceeds remaining in the estate.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a sale by an attorney-in-fact without the testator’s knowledge does not cause ademption of a specific devise. This extends the “involuntary act” exception beyond sales by guardians, focusing on the testator’s awareness and opportunity to revise the will rather than the agent’s status.
In Re Estate of Anton Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The testator, Mary Anton, executed a will that specifically devised a one-half interest in a duplex to her stepdaughter, Gretchen Coy. Years later, after executing a durable power of attorney naming her daughter, Nancy Ezarski, as her agent, Mary’s health declined and she entered a nursing home. To pay for Mary’s ongoing care, Nancy, acting as attorney-in-fact, sold the duplex, which was the last major asset in Mary’s estate. Nancy did so after being advised by nursing home staff not to discuss financial matters with her mother to avoid causing distress. Consequently, Mary was never informed of the specific sale of the duplex, although she had a general awareness years prior that her assets might need to be sold for her support. At the time of the sale, Mary’s mental capacity was diminishing, with medical notes referencing “confusion” and “dementia.” When Mary died, a substantial portion of the proceeds from the duplex sale remained unexpended in her estate. Coy filed a claim against the estate for her share of the proceeds, which the executor disallowed, arguing the specific bequest had been adeemed by extinction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the doctrine of ademption by extinction apply when an attorney-in-fact, acting under a durable power of attorney, sells specifically devised property without the testator’s knowledge to pay for the testator’s necessary care?
No, the specific devise was not adeemed. The court held that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the doctrine of ademption by extinction apply when an attorney-in-fact, acting under a durable power of attorney, sells specifically devised property without the testator’s knowledge to pay for the testator’s necessary care?
Conclusion
This case solidifies Iowa's modern approach to ademption, extending the involuntary act Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor
Legal Rule
Under Iowa's "modified intention theory," ademption by extinction does not occur when Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Iowa applied its "modified intention theory" of ademption, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate v
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The sale of specifically devised property by an attorney-in-fact does not