## Facts

- Jan Karski signed a 1992 letter to YIVO Institute for Jewish Research pledging to fund a $100,000 endowment, either by lifetime gifts of cash/securities or by a testamentary gift.
- In 1993, Karski executed a will making a specific bequest to YIVO of Northern States Power Company stock, then valued at about $100,000.
- After executing the will, Karski made inter vivos transfers to YIVO consisting of stocks (not Northern States Power) totaling $99,997.69 and then paid an additional $2.31 in cash, bringing his lifetime gifts to exactly $100,000.
- Karski did not amend his will. At his death in 2000, the Northern States Power shares remained in his estate and had appreciated to more than $100,000.
- YIVO sought distribution of the Northern States Power shares under the will; the estate’s personal representative and residuary legatees denied the request, asserting the specific bequest was adeemed by satisfaction due to Karski’s lifetime gifts.

## Issues

1. Whether Maryland law should require a contemporaneous writing to prove a testator intended an inter vivos gift to satisfy (adeem) a testamentary legacy.
2. Whether the lower courts erred in finding Karski’s lifetime gifts satisfied the specific bequest and in admitting testimony about Karski’s oral statements of intent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment denying YIVO the Northern States Power shares.
- The court declined to adopt a rule requiring a contemporaneous writing to establish ademption by satisfaction.
- The court upheld the factual finding that Karski intended his lifetime gifts totaling $100,000 to fulfill the obligation reflected in the will bequest, thereby adeeming the legacy by satisfaction.
- The court held that testimony regarding Karski’s oral statements was admissible to prove intent and that the trial court committed no reversible error in admitting it.

## Legal Principles

- Ademption by satisfaction depends on the testator’s actual intent at the time the inter vivos gift is made.
- Intent to satisfy a legacy may be proven through extrinsic (parol) evidence and is not limited to a contemporaneous written instrument.
- For satisfaction analysis, the economic substance and purpose of the transfer may control over strict identity of the gifted asset and the specifically bequeathed property, when the evidence supports that the testator treated the assets as interchangeable for fulfilling the same obligation.
- Appellate review defers to the trial court’s factual findings on intent unless clearly erroneous and generally reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Maryland’s highest court held that a testator’s lifetime gifts can adeem a specific testamentary bequest by satisfaction when the evidence shows the gifts were intended to fulfill the same obligation, and that such intent may be established through parol evidence without any contemporaneous writing requirement.


YIVO Inst. for Jewish Rsch. v. Zaleski, 386 Md. 654, 874 A.2d 411 (Md. 2005)