## Facts

- P. T. Ewing died intestate owning a tract of land.
- Margaret Livingston (plaintiff/appellant) and Louise Crickenberger and others (defendants/appellees) were Ewing’s sole intestate heirs.
- A partition action was brought concerning the land, and the circuit court ordered a commissioners’ sale.
- After Ewing’s death, the land was sold at the partition sale to a group composed of some of the heirs, including Crickenberger.
- In connection with distributing the estate assets and partition-sale proceeds, the circuit court conducted a hotchpot accounting to determine what “advancements” should be charged against each heir’s intestate share.
- Livingston had received certain property or benefits after Ewing’s death, including items received from the estate’s administrator and items obtained through dealings with other heirs.
- Livingston contended she had not received any qualifying inter vivos transfer from Ewing that could be treated as an advancement.
- The circuit court nevertheless charged Livingston with items as “advancements,” concluded those charges exceeded her intestate share, and ruled she was indebted to the estate rather than entitled to participate in the distribution.
- Livingston appealed from the order confirming the sale and approving the distribution.

## Issues

1. In an intestate hotchpot accounting, what proof is required to treat a transfer as an “advancement” chargeable against an heir’s share?
2. Can items received by an heir after the decedent’s death—such as distributions by the administrator or conveyances/arrangements among heirs—be treated as advancements by the decedent for purposes of cutting off the heir’s distributive share and imposing an obligation to repay the estate?

## Decision

- The First District Court of Appeal held the trial court erred to the extent it treated items as advancements without the required showing that they were lifetime transfers from the intestate decedent made with the intent they be charged against the heir’s inheritance.
- The court rejected treating post-death receipts from the administrator or transactions among heirs as “advancements” by Ewing.
- The order was reversed in part and remanded for recomputation and redistribution consistent with the correct rules governing advancements and hotchpot (with the remainder of the partition proceedings left undisturbed).

## Legal Principles

- An “advancement” is a lifetime transfer from an intestate decedent to an heir, made as a prepayment of the heir’s future intestate share.
- Whether a transfer is an advancement turns on the decedent’s intent at the time of the transfer; a mere gift or benefit is not an advancement absent proof it was meant to be charged in final distribution.
- The party asserting an advancement bears the burden to show the necessary intent and that the item qualifies as an advancement under the doctrine.
- Hotchpot is used to calculate equal shares by adding the value of valid advancements to the estate for computation, then charging each recipient with what was previously advanced.
- Property or value received after the decedent’s death from the administrator, or obtained through arrangements among heirs, is not a lifetime advancement by the decedent and cannot be used as an advancement charge in hotchpot.

## Conclusion

Because the trial court’s hotchpot computation charged Livingston with items that were not proven to be qualifying lifetime advancements intended by Ewing as prepayments of inheritance, the resulting determination that she had no share and owed money back to the estate could not stand; the appellate court therefore reversed in part and remanded for recalculation and redistribution under the proper advancement rules.


Livingston v. Crickenberger, 141 So. 2d 794 (1962)