## Facts

- Marie G. Dow executed a will in 2014 while domiciled in Massachusetts.
- The will left the residue of her estate to her former daughter-in-law, Leslie Dow, with an alternate gift to a granddaughter if Leslie did not survive.
- The will included a broad clause stating the testator intentionally omitted to provide for any persons not mentioned in the will.
- The will also stated the estate was to be administered and enforced under Massachusetts law.
- About a year before her death, Marie moved to New Hampshire and lived in an assisted living facility there.
- At death in 2018, Marie was domiciled in New Hampshire and her estate consisted solely of personal property.
- Marie’s son, Christopher Dow, was not named in the will and received no gift.
- Christopher petitioned for an intestate share as a pretermitted child under RSA 551:10; Leslie contended Massachusetts law controlled and barred relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a will’s Massachusetts choice-of-law clause required application of Massachusetts law to the distribution of a New Hampshire domiciliary’s estate consisting solely of personal property.
2. Whether, under RSA 551:10, a general “intentional omission” clause is sufficient to show an intent to disinherit an omitted child and defeat pretermitted-heir status.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed and remanded.
- New Hampshire law governed the distribution of the decedent’s personal property because she was domiciled in New Hampshire at death.
- The Massachusetts choice-of-law clause did not displace New Hampshire’s conflict-of-laws rule for succession to personalty.
- Under RSA 551:10, Christopher was a pretermitted heir entitled to an intestate share.
- The will’s generic omission clause, without specific reference to Christopher or other clear indication of intentional disinheritance as to him, did not bar his statutory share.

## Legal Principles

- Succession to a decedent’s personal property is governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile at death.
- A testamentary choice-of-law provision cannot override New Hampshire’s governing-law rule for distribution of a New Hampshire domiciliary’s personalty.
- RSA 551:10 protects an omitted child by providing an intestate share unless the will shows the omission was intentional.
- A boilerplate “intentional omission” clause that does not identify or otherwise clearly address the omitted child is insufficient, standing alone, to defeat pretermitted-heir protection.

## Conclusion

Because the decedent died domiciled in New Hampshire and left only personal property, New Hampshire law controlled despite the will’s Massachusetts choice-of-law language, and the omitted son qualified as a pretermitted heir under RSA 551:10 where the will lacked a clear, child-specific indication of intentional disinheritance.


In re Estate of Dow, 174 N.H. 37, 260 A.3d 1 (N.H. 2021)