This article focuses on how we determine the meaning of the will.
Plain Meaning
There are two basic rules: plain meaning and no reformation. That is, no extrinsic evidence will be permitted unless the plain meaning of the will is ambiguous. No reformation states that the will cannot be adjusted to account for a mistake by the testator.
Mahoney v. Grainger
186 N.E. 86 (Mass. 1933).
Facts
Sullivan was on her deathbed when she created her will. She told the attorney the rest of her estate could be divided equally between her first cousins. However, the attorney gave the residue to her “heirs at law” which was only the testator’s aunt. When she died, her cousins sought to introduce the extrinsic evidence, saying the residue should be devised to them.
Analysis
The rule of law is clear, and the langauge of the will is clear. She gave her residue to her heirs of law, so that is who will receive it. The fact that the word heirs is plural does not matter even though only one person would receive it. Because the meaning is plain, the court cannot allow the extrinsic evidence.
In re Estate of Cole
621 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. App. 2001).
Facts
Cole executed a will that devised “the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($25,000)” to her friend. The trial court determined this was a blatant ambiguity and therefore considered the will writer’s testimony to help resolve the inconsistency. Essentially, the lawyer copy and pasted from a different paragraph containing the same words. He then adjusted the number but not the words. Using this evidence, the trial court said the friend was only to receive 25,000.
Analysis
There is a blatant inconsistency here, thus allowing extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the testator. Here, the testimony of the lawyer refines that intent and can therefore be admissible evidence.
Additional Notes
This case provides the distinction between a patent and latent ambiguity. A patent ambiguity is where the language written on the will is not clear. A latent ambiguity, on the other hand, is where extrinsic evidence makes the language unclear. Traditionally, only patent ambiguity could create a question. Now, both can.
Ad Hoc Relief
Arnheiter v. Arnheiter
125 A.2d 914 (N.J. Ch. 1956).
Facts
The will devised the testator’s interest in “304 Harrison Avenue” to her two neices. However, the testator did not have an interest in 304 Harrison Avenue, but did in 317 Harrison Avenue. The beneficiaries sought to amend the will to correct the mistake.
Analysis
The will cannot be amended to correct the mistake. However, a doctrime of falsa demonstratio non nocet allows for the deletion of the number. If the rest of the description is sufficient to describe the property, then the provision could be read as corrected. Here, the testator only has one property on Harrison Avenue and did not give 317 Harrison Ave to anyone else. For this reason, removing the number still provides a sufficient description of the property.
Death of Beneficiary Before Testator
In re Estate of Russell
444 P.2d 353 (Cal. 1968).
Facts
Russell had a holographic will on a small card. On the front of the card, the will devised her estate to Quinn and Roxy Russell. On the back, Georgia Hembree, a neice of the testator, was to receive a gold coin and some jewelry.
Turns out Roxy Russell was a dog and had died before the testator. The trial court admitted evidence showing that Roxy was a dog, but also allowed evidence saying that the estate was to be given to Quinn to care for the dog. Hembree disputed this second peice of evidence, saying the testator had divided the shares equally between Quinn and Roxy. Because a dog cannot be a beneficiary, the gift is void and the residue would go to Hembree, the heir at law.
Analysis
The appellate court agrees with Hembree. There is no ambiguity of the language and thus the estate is divided and the residue provided to Hembree.
Additional Notes
The common law rule is “no residue of a residue.” That is, if a residue taker survives another residue taker, then the surviving taker does not get the residue. Instead, the remainder goes intestate.
Antilapse Statute
If a grandparent’s will devises to their child, and the child predeceased the grandparent, then the grandchild will take instead. So, if T devises to C. C dies leaving a surviving D. T then dies with a will leaving for C. D will then take C’s share in C’s place.
If this was common law, instead of the grandchild taking, any other surviving heirs would take instead.
Changes in Property after Execution
In re Estate of Anton
731 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 2007).
Facts
Mary Anton had purchased property and built a duplex on it. She then bequeathed half of her interest in the duplex to her stepdaughter and the other half to her biological son. The remainder was to go to her daughter Nancy.
Eventually, Mary began to fade and Nancy was appointed power of attorney to care for her. The estate needed to be sold to pay for her needs and the duplex was the last asset sold. When she died, the value remaining from the sale was aroudn 104,000.
The stepdaughter now seeks her interest in the duplex. Nancy argues the sale adempted the will and so the stepdaughter wouldn’t get anything.
Analysis
