## Facts

- A testatrix executed a will giving a friend a $20,000 general pecuniary legacy.
- The will also gave the testatrix’s grandchildren a specific bequest of Texaco stock and “any and all monies” standing in the testatrix’s name on deposit in any banking institution at death.
- About five weeks before death, the testatrix’s son, acting under a written power of attorney, withdrew $50,000 from her savings accounts and used $30,000 to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds; he testified the testatrix approved the transactions.
- At death, the referenced bank accounts had no remaining funds, while the Treasury bonds purchased with withdrawn funds remained in the estate.
- Estate assets were insufficient to satisfy both the friend’s $20,000 general legacy and the grandchildren’s claimed entitlement to the withdrawn funds.
- The estate administrator sought court instructions on whether the grandchildren’s bequest was adeemed and whether the Treasury bonds should be traced to satisfy the grandchildren’s bequest or treated as general assets to pay the friend’s legacy.

## Issues

1. Whether conversion of bank deposits into U.S. Treasury bonds, with the testatrix’s knowledge and ratification, adeemed a specific bequest of “monies” on deposit in any banking institution.
2. If ademption occurred, whether the Treasury bonds were available as general estate assets to satisfy a general $20,000 pecuniary legacy.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed the trial court.
- The court held the bequest of “monies” on deposit in any banking institution was a specific legacy.
- The court held the specific bequest was adeemed because no such bank deposits existed at the testatrix’s death.
- The court rejected tracing the withdrawn funds into Treasury bonds as substitute property for the specific bequest.
- The court directed that the Treasury bonds be treated as general estate assets and used to satisfy the friend’s $20,000 general legacy, with any excess passing under the residuary disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A specific legacy is adeemed when, at the testator’s death, the specifically described property is absent from the estate due to a substantial change in the nature or character of the property.
- A merely formal or nominal change in the form of property does not cause ademption; a conversion into materially different property can.
- Courts primarily apply the objective language of the will to determine whether a gift is tied to property existing at death, rather than inferring a substitute gift from family relationships or assumed preferences.
- When a specific bequest is adeemed, the property remaining in the estate is distributed under ordinary rules for general and residuary dispositions, and is available to satisfy general pecuniary legacies.

## Conclusion

The court applied an identity-based doctrine of ademption, holding that the grandchildren’s specific bequest of bank deposits failed because the deposits no longer existed at death after being converted into Treasury bonds, which instead became general estate assets available to pay the friend’s general $20,000 legacy.


McGee v. McGee, 122 R.I. 837, 413 A.2d 72 (R.I. 1980)