The Sold Truck, the Stock Split, and a Residue That Cannot Pay the Bills

Curtis takes nothing.

Article III is a specific devise - it identifies particular property by description and VIN. The doctrine of ademption by extinction provides that a specific devise fails if the testator did not own the property at death.

Applying it:

• Dorothy sold the 2018 F-150 in 2022, while competent and of her own volition. She did not own it at death.
• The 2023 Tacoma is a replacement asset, not a mere change in form of the same property (contrast a stock split or a merger conversion). The traditional rule is objective: the devise adeems, and the devisee takes nothing and has no claim to the substitute property.
• The Tacoma therefore falls into the residue under Article V, which - as shown below - is fully consumed by creditors.

Judgment check: some jurisdictions apply a testator's-intent standard, and UPC-style statutes provide relief where the property was sold by a conservator or guardian or where the testator received insurance proceeds. None of those exceptions fits: Dorothy sold the truck herself, and there is no allegation of incapacity. Confirm the local rule, but on these facts the answer is the same in most states - but if the jurisdiction has an intent-based ademption statute, the result could change and the file should flag it.

Ruth takes the full 2,000 shares, subject to the abatement analysis in the next question.

• The devise of "1,000 shares of Cedar Valley Bancorp common stock" is specific. A stock split does not extinguish the devised property; it changes its form. The 2,000 post-split shares are the same ownership interest Dorothy held, merely re-denominated.
• The majority rule: a specific devisee of shares takes any additional shares resulting from a split or stock dividend on those shares, because the testator's intent was to give the identified block of ownership, not a frozen number of certificates.
• This is the opposite of the truck: a split is a change in form, while a sale-and-repurchase is a substitution of a different asset.

Watch the description. If the will had instead devised "1,000 shares" and Dorothy had purchased an additional 1,000 shares with her own money, the extra shares would fall to residue. Verify whether the extra 1,000 came from the split (it did here) or from a purchase or reinvestment before answering.

Ruth's devise is not protected from creditors, however - see the abatement step.

Alan and Brenda receive nothing. Ruth's shares must be sold to raise $80,000, and she takes the balance.

Abatement follows a fixed order: (1) property not disposed of by will, (2) residuary, (3) general devises, (4) specific devises.

Step	Source	Available	Applied to $260,000 debt
1	Intestate property	$0	$0
2	Residue (cash/securities + the Tacoma)	$180,000	$180,000
3	General devises	none	$0
4	Specific devises (Ruth's 2,000 shares)	value unstated	$80,000 shortfall

• Alan and Brenda lose the entire residue, and the 2023 Tacoma (which fell into residue when the F-150 devise adeemed) is also consumed.
• Ruth's specific devise abates last but still abates. Because Curtis's devise adeemed and contributes nothing, Ruth bears the whole $80,000: enough of the 2,000 shares must be sold to net $80,000, and she takes the remaining shares. Obtain a valuation date (usually date of death for abatement purposes) to fix the exact number of shares sold.
• Curtis receives nothing, so there is no contribution from him.

Practice points: confirm whether the jurisdiction has abolished exoneration of liens (irrelevant here, no encumbered devise) and whether any of the "debts" are claims that must be presented within a nonclaim period - an untimely creditor claim would reduce the $80,000 hit on Ruth's shares.