.webp)
.png)
On our blog, we have discussed various bases on which wills may be challenged when a testator passes away and a given estate is ready to be distributed. There are many, many potential reasons as to why a given will might be challenged. Among the most common reasons, as we have seen, is questioning the identity of beneficiaries – in other words, making a challenge as to whom the testator actually intended to bequeath his or her property. Another potential challenge relates to the clarity of the instructions within specific bequests. Sometimes, when a particular bequest is made in a will, the instructions within that bequest may be ambiguous such that the personal representative is left unsure about how to proceed. This can easily lead to a challenge and litigation.
In the well-known case of Lee v. Estate of Davis (1961), textual ambiguity within a specific bequest led to a challenge which ended up being resolved ultimately by the Supreme Court of Maryland. Among other things, this case sets an important precedent regarding how courts will interpret text within wills in order to resolve potential ambiguity: specifically, courts will consider the larger context of the text, as well as the objective intent of the testator.
Let’s examine this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
The testatrix in this case, Erma Davis, executed a will prior to her passing which left a wide variety of items to various beneficiaries. Her assets included lots of different pieces of tangible personal property – silver, China items, linens, jewelry, glassware, and so forth. Her assets also included intangible personal property, such as bonds, cash, and bank deposits. One particular bequest – item no. 5 – came under scrutiny when the listed beneficiaries, Robert and Lena Lee, claimed that the instructions within the bequest were ambiguous. In addition to leaving the Lees specific pieces of personal tangible property, the instructions within item 5 also stated that the Lees had the right to select “any pieces of personalty” which were not specifically listed.
Understandably, a dispute arose because the Lees claimed that this language meant that they were entitled to certain things which were not a part of Ms. Davis’ estate at the time she wrote that particular bequest. The Lees wanted other pieces of property, such as cash and bank deposits, which were acquired after item 5 was executed.
Ruling & Analysis
The case went to the Supreme Court of Maryland (then the Maryland Court of Appeals), as mentioned, and ultimately a determination was made that the testatrix, Ms. Lee, did not intend to leave all personal property to the beneficiaries, but only the tangible personal property specifically identified as well as other pieces of tangible personal property owned at the time of the will execution. The beneficiaries argued that the phrase “any pieces of personalty” extended to all personal property, tangible and intangible, owned at the time of the will execution and also anything acquired afterwards. The court rejected this argument, focusing on the plain language of the text itself, as well as the intent of the testatrix as gleaned from the surrounding circumstances. Because the testatrix acquired property after she wrote that particular item, the court concluded that she did not intend to leave anything acquired afterwards to the beneficiaries of that item; furthermore, the language of the item itself referenced specific tangible assets, such as silver, glassware, and so forth, and so the most reasonable interpretation was that she intended to limit the distribution to other personal tangible property.
Even though this case is a bit older, we can see how important it is in the resolution of ambiguous terms in wills. This is precisely why a qualified estate planning attorney should be consulted prior to developing a will.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
For more information on resolving textual ambiguity in wills, other potential will challenges, developing and executing a valid and enforceable last will and testament, or any other estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
