Testator and Anna Zelinksi, whose married name was Anna Marie Covert Hannan, were married in 1981 and divorced in 2001. They had no children. During the marriage, Testator executed a Will, which provided in pertinent part:

ITEM FOUR: Should my Wife, ANNA MARIE COVERT HANNAN, and myself die together by accident or otherwise, the estate is to be handled by LYDIA ELIZABETH COVERT FRIEDMAN and KEVIN HANNAN. All real and personal property, except jewelry belonging to my Wife and myself be liquidated and proceeds there of [sic] be divided equally between my surviving immediate family members and those surving [sic] immediate family members of my Wife: JEROME B. HANNAN, KEVIN HANNAN, MICHAEL HANNAN, KATHLEEN HANNAN and DANIEL HANNAN, LYDIA ELIZABETH COVERT FRIEDMAN, PATRICIA JO COVERT TOLLEY, BARBARA JANE COVERT, GENIA LOUISE COVERT, AND KELLEY ANN FRIEDMAN (said KELLEY is to share her part with her sister KIMBERLY BETH FRIEDMAN).

After divorce, Testator's Will was unchanged and ultimately probated upon his death. Testator's brother, Jerome Hannan, was appointed Personal Representative. In 2007, the Orphans' Court for Baltimore City concluded that the Item Four would only take effect if Testator and his ex-spouse died simultaneously and ordered that the Will not be admitted to probate. Jerome Hannan as Personal Representative for the Estate, and named family members of the ex-spouse, appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

The Circuit Court determined that Item Four was a residuary clause and therefore, Testator died testate. The Will was interpreted as a whole and determined that the provisions relating to the immediately family of the ex-spouse could not be fulfilled. The family members appealed, and the Court of Appeals determined whether Item Four of the Will survived Testator's divorce.

The MD. CODE ANN., EST. & TRUSTS § 4-105 sets for circumstances under which a will may be revoked. Subsection (4) states:

Divorce or annulment. – By an absolute divorce of a testator and his spouse or the annulment of the marriage, either of which occurs subsequent to the execution of the testator's will; and all provisions in the will relating to the spouse, and only those provisions, shall be revoked unless otherwise provided in the will or decree.

(emphasis added). Hannan argued that "relating to" provides the section a broad application, capturing bequests to the family members of the ex-spouse. On the other hand, Friedman argued that "relating to" receives a strictly narrow interpretation and only revokes bequests directly to the ex-spouse.

The Court looked to case law construing "relating to" in various contexts, including cases dealing with the rules of evidence, employment compensation cases, and questions of government agency relationships. The Court held "relating to" is a broad term, and does not limit a court's application of the section to bequests made directly to an ex-spouse or for the benefit of the ex-spouse. Rather, a bequest "relating to the spouse" may encompass other gifts, including those made to the ex-spouse's family.

The paramount concern is effectuating the testator's intent and to accomplish that, the Court may consider the relationships between the testator and the beneficiaries. In this case, the Testator did not maintain an independent relationship with the ex-spouse's family members and did not know them prior to his marriage. The Court concluded the Testator likely would not have included them in the Will had the marriage not occurred.

Accordingly, the Court held that § 4-105(4) shall receive broad application. Its effects are not limited to bequests direct to a spouse and the decision of whether a particular provision is one "relating to" a former spouse is a question of fact for the trial court. The Court held Item Four's bequests relating to the Testator's ex-spouse and the ex-spouse's family members were void.