Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
The decedent died. The decedent's will, dated January 20, 1973, left his entire estate to his wife, Katherine M. White (Katherine). The will failed to name a contingent beneficiary and it did not contain a residuary clause. Katherine died October 14, 1993, survived by the decedent and Ps. D, the decedent's attorney, repeatedly advised the decedent to let him review the will, but the decedent never showed the will to D. The decedent died survived by his intestate heirs who were discovered through a genealogical search. Ds are the decedent's first cousins, once removed. Ps filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief and reformation of the decedent's will. Ps alleged that they, and not Ds are the rightful beneficiaries under the will. Ds filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. For almost five decades, Ps had a close relationship with the decedent. Moreover, after Katherine's death, the decedent relied heavily on Ps for advice and assistance with daily matters. After the decedent died, he was buried in the Ps' family plot. On several occasions, the decedent told members of Ps' family that his Arlington residence and its contents 'will be [theirs] someday.' The decedent informed D that he understood that, if Katherine were to predecease him, his will provided for his property to go to Ps. The decedent did not have a close relationship with the heirs. The judge granted Ds' motions for summary judgment, ruling that, because the will was unambiguous on its face, extrinsic evidence of the decedent's alleged intent was inadmissible. Ps appealed. This appeal presents the question of whether we should overrule (1) the so-called 'plain meaning' rule, which prohibits the admission of extrinsic evidence to construe unambiguous wills; and (2) the rule prohibiting the reformation of wills.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co