Also known as: advancement doctrine · doctrine of advancements · advancement · hotchpot
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of intestate succession under which a lifetime gift from a decedent to an individual who is an heir at death reduces the heir's share of the estate. The reduction occurs only when the decedent declares in a contemporaneous writing or the heir acknowledges in writing that the gift counts toward the intestate distribution.
Antonio Alvarado gave his daughter Amber Alonzo $75,000 toward a home purchase two years before his death. He died intestate survived by Amber and two sons. Amber claims the money should not reduce her share because no writing exists declaring the gift an advancement. The court treats the transfer as an absolute gift that does not affect her intestate portion.
Austin Abbott transferred $40,000 to his son Adrian Aguilar to start a business. Adrian signed a letter stating the sum would be deducted from any future inheritance. When Austin died intestate, the probate court subtracted the gift from Adrian's share before dividing the remaining estate among the heirs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Audrey Ashton deeded a parcel of land to her niece Alexis Archer. A note written at the time of the deed stated the land would be credited against Alexis's eventual intestate share. After Audrey's intestate death the court valued the land at the earlier of delivery or death and reduced Alexis's portion accordingly.
Adrian Aguilar received $25,000 from his uncle Antonio Alvarado with no contemporaneous statement of intent. Years later Antonio wrote a letter claiming the money should count as an advancement. The court refused to treat the gift as an advancement because the writing was not made at the time of the transfer.
Amber Alonzo received a $60,000 gift from her grandmother Audrey Ashton while Amber's mother was still alive. After the mother predeceased Audrey, Amber became an heir. The court applied the advancement doctrine because a contemporaneous writing existed and Amber qualified as an heir at Audrey's death.
Antonio Alvarado named his son Austin Abbott as beneficiary of a life insurance policy and executed a contemporaneous writing stating the proceeds would reduce Austin's intestate share. Upon Antonio's death the court included the policy proceeds in the hotchpot calculation before distributing the remaining estate.
A contemporaneous writing by the decedent or a written acknowledgment by the heir must indicate that the gift is to be taken into account in computing the intestate shares. Any expression showing the gift should affect distribution satisfies the requirement.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under the modern rule followed by the Uniform Probate Code and the Restatement, a gift is an advancement only if the required writing exists. An oral statement or later declaration by the decedent is insufficient.
Supporting sources
The property is valued at the earlier of the time the heir took possession or the decedent's death. This fixes the amount subtracted from the heir's intestate share.
Supporting sources
No. The recipient need only be an heir at the decedent's death. A grandchild who receives a gift while the parent is alive can still have the gift treated as an advancement if the parent later predeceases the decedent.
Supporting sources
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson <!-- acedexams opinion md v1 -- Case information - Court: Supreme Court of the United States - Docket No.: No. 91 -…