NCCUSL Approves UPC Amendments

On January 12, 2008, the Executive Committee of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved amendments to the Uniform Probate Code.

The amendments make significant changes to the computation of the forced (elective) share which is the amount of property a surviving spouse may take away from other beneficiaries of the deceased spouse’s will if the deceased spouse did not leave a statutorily specified amount of property to the surviving spouse.  In other words, the way in which the law restricts a spouse’s testamentary freedom have been altered.

The purpose of forced share statutes is to “imitate” the tremendous benefits of a community property system and its partnership theory of marriage by applying an elaborate and complex statutory scheme designed to achieve similar results in common law property jurisdictions.

Here is an excerpt from the commentary explaining the changes:

When first promulgated in the early 1990s, the statute provided that the “elective-share percentage” increased annually according to a graduated schedule. The “elective-share percentage” ranged from a low of 0 percent for a marriage of less than one year to a high of 50 percent for a marriage of fifteen years or more. The “elective-share percentage” did double duty. The system equated the “elective-share percentage” of the couple’s combined assets with 50 percent of the marital-property portion of the couple’s assets—the assets that are subject to equalization under the partnership theory of marriage. Consequently, the elective share effected the partnership theory rather indirectly. Although the schedule was designed to represent by approximation a constant fifty percent of the marital-property portion of the couple’s assets (the augmented estate), it did not say so explicitly.

The 2008 revisions are designed to present the system in a more direct form, one that makes the system more transparent and therefore more understandable. The 2008 revisions disentangle the elective-share percentage from the system that approximates the marital-property portion of the augmented estate. As revised, the statute provides that the “elective-share percentage” is always 50 percent, but it is not 50 percent of the augmented estate but 50 percent of the “marital-property portion” of the augmented estate. The marital-property portion of the augmented estate is computed by approximation—by applying the percentages set forth in a graduated schedule that increases annually with the length of the marriage (each “marital-portion percentage” being double the percentage previously set forth in the “elective-share percentage” schedule). Thus, for example, under the former system, the elective-share amount in a marriage of ten years was 30 percent of the augmented estate. Under the revised system, the elective-share amount is 50 percent of the marital-property portion of the augmented estate, the marital-property portion of the augmented estate being 60 percent of the augmented estate.

The primary benefit of these changes is that the statute, as revised, presents the elective-share’s implementation of the partnership theory of marriage in a direct rather than indirect form, adding clarity and transparency to the system. An important byproduct of the revision is that it facilitates the inclusion of an alternative provision for enacting states that want to implement the partnership theory of marriage but prefer not to define the marital-property portion by approximation but by classification. Under the deferred marital-property approach, the marital-property portion consists of the value of the couple’s property that was acquired during the marriage other than by gift or inheritance. * * *

The 2008 revisions are based on a proposal presented in Waggoner, “The Uniform Probate Code’s Elective Share: Time for a Reassessment,” 37 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 1 (2003), an article that gives a more extensive explanation of the rationale of the 2008 revisions.

Technical amendments were also made to a variety of other sections, especially those dealing with anti-lapse and related issues.

Special thanks to Robert Sitkoff (John L. Gray Professor of Law, Harvard Law School) for bringing this development to my attention.