## Facts

- In 1984, Lowell H. Becraft, Sr. executed a will leaving his entire estate to his then-wife, Barbara, or, if she predeceased him, to their children.
- Barbara died in 1985.
- Dr. Becraft later married Elizabeth Becraft and died about seven months after the marriage.
- Dr. Becraft never amended or revoked the 1984 will and executed no codicil mentioning Elizabeth; the will did not address a future spouse.
- After Dr. Becraft’s death, his children (through the executor) offered the 1984 will for probate; Elizabeth was omitted from the will.
- Elizabeth petitioned for an omitted spouse’s share under Ala. Code § 43-8-90(a).
- During the second marriage, Dr. Becraft named Elizabeth as beneficiary of a $25,000 life-insurance policy.
- The children asserted the insurance was intended to replace any testamentary provision and offered testimony that Dr. and Barbara intended the estate to pass to their children.
- Elizabeth offered contrary testimony indicating Dr. Becraft did not express an intent to disinherit her.
- The probate court granted Elizabeth an omitted spouse’s share; the executor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court’s finding that Elizabeth was entitled to an omitted spouse’s share was against the great weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the probate court misapplied Ala. Code § 43-8-90(a) by treating certain formal instruments (e.g., codicil or marital agreement) as the only way to prove the statutory defenses.
3. Whether the probate court misapplied § 43-8-90(a) by requiring an outside-the-will transfer to approximate the omitted spouse’s intestate share.
4. Whether the probate court relied on facts outside the record in granting the omitted spouse’s share.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment granting Elizabeth an omitted spouse’s share under Ala. Code § 43-8-90(a).
- The court held the children failed to reasonably prove that the life-insurance designation was intended in lieu of a testamentary provision.
- The court held the will did not show, on its face, an intentional omission of a later-married spouse.
- The court found no reversible legal error in the probate court’s use of the absence of formal instruments and the size of the insurance benefit as evidentiary factors.
- The court deferred to the probate court’s credibility determinations and found no clear error.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ala. Code § 43-8-90(a), a spouse who marries the testator after the will’s execution and is omitted from the will presumptively takes an intestate share.
- The presumption is overcome only if (1) the will indicates the omission was intentional, or (2) the testator made a transfer outside the will and intent that the transfer substitute for a testamentary provision is reasonably proven.
- The party opposing the omitted spouse claim bears the burden to reasonably prove a statutory exception, including substitute-intent for an outside-the-will transfer.
- A nonprobate transfer (such as life insurance) does not, by itself, establish substitute-intent; intent may be evaluated using circumstantial evidence, including the presence or absence of confirming documents and the transfer’s relative size.
- Appellate review is deferential to probate court factfinding and credibility assessments; findings will not be disturbed absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed an omitted spouse’s intestate share because the will did not show an intentional omission of a later-married spouse, and the children did not reasonably prove that the $25,000 life-insurance benefit was intended to replace a testamentary provision under Ala. Code § 43-8-90(a).


Becraft v. Becraft, 628 So. 2d 404 (Ala. 1993)