Question

Robert McNeel was married twice during his life. McNeel had two stepdaughters from his first marriage and a son from his second. In 1998, McNeel moved to a ranch near Big Piney. The ranch consisted of approximately 4,015 acres of deeded land and 31,000 acres of grazing-permitted land, 420 cattle, and two homes. By 2002, McNeel's physician confirmed that he was suffering from progressive Alzheimer's dementia. Just one year later, McNeel was divorced and his stepdaughters appeared to reestablish a relationship. McNeel had had virtually no contact with his stepdaughters for 18 years. Both of the stepdaughters moved to the ranch to live with their stepfather. In 2005, the ranch house where his stepdaughter Mrs. Kelly had been living with her family burned down. A few days later Mr. Kelly drove McNeel to his attorney's office. Mr. Kelly stayed in the room while McNeel changed his estate plan from leaving equal shares to his two stepdaughters and his son to leaving two-thirds to Mrs. Kelly and one-third to his other stepdaughter. Just a few short months later, doctors diagnosed McNeel with advanced dementia. After a short stay in a psychiatric hospital, McNeel was released into the care of the Kellys. Mrs. Kelly was substituted as guardian for McNeel. A few days later, Mrs. Kelly signed a contract for construction of a half-million-dollar house on the ranch. McNeel's son filed suit. What do you think was the basis of the son's suit? Who do you think prevailed? [Kelly v. McNeel, 2001 WL 1743922 (Wyo.).]

Answer 1

Explanation:

• McNeel in his initial estate plan included his son to be owner of half of that particular land and basis on that his son filed the lawsuit but he was not aware that his father changed the estate plan in later time.
• Kelly will prevail in this case as she had the most part of property of that land according to changed estate plan and McNeel’s son did not had any ownership of that estate anymore so there would be no base for argument on his part.