.webp)
.png)
No matter how thoroughly reviewed and revised a given will may be, challenges to wills tend to happen often, and very frequently the source of these challenges relates to issues regarding testamentary intent. In other words, the causality of many of the challenges which are brought against wills in Maryland tends to derive from uncertainty regarding what was meant by a particular testator in a given situation.
Uncertainty regarding what was intended by a testator (testamentary intent) might arise for any number of specific reasons. In some cases, there might be uncertainty stemming from unclear language pertaining to how a particular asset should be divided between beneficiaries; in other cases, there might be uncertainty stemming from multiple plausible interpretations of a particular beneficiary’s identity. Whatever the causality of uncertainty might be in any given case, what is clear is that the purpose of Maryland courts is to determine, as best as can be done with the available evidence, the truest intent of the testator.
In the well-known case of Lowenthal v. Rome (1984), the court developed a key precedent for settling certain will challenges by discussing the evidentiary value of “extrinsic evidence” in assessing testator intent. Let’s examine this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
This case technically involved multiple legal disputes, but all the disputes ultimately derived from a core set of facts. The testator in this case, Jean Lowenthal, executed a will following the passing of his wife. The will, executed in the Spanish language while the testator was residing in Spain, divided up his assets between two beneficiaries. After the passing of the testator, a dispute arose as to whether the will truly left all property to just those two beneficiaries. To handle this dispute, the court faced the question of whether certain “extrinsic evidence” – in this case, a personal letter written by the testator after the will had been drafted and executed – could be used to assist in interpreting the will.
The trial court held that the letter could be used, and after utilizing the letter the court determined that the testator’s intent was clearly to include all his assets in the distribution to the two beneficiaries identified in the will. Given that the identity of the beneficiaries was never in dispute, the primary issue in the case was effectively resolved after the court accepted the evidentiary weight presented by the personal letter. The matter then went before the appellate division.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Analysis
Upon review, the appellate division upheld the trial court’s determinations, ruling that the use of the extrinsic evidence to assist with interpretation was proper, and that the court was sound in its conclusion that the testator meant to include all property in the distribution to the two beneficiaries.
Both courts also used the statutory presumption against intestacy in their opinions: because the alternative conclusion would involve “partial intestacy,” the presumption was that the will document encompassed all property, and so the court’s ruling ultimately reflects the fact that there was no evidence presented to rebut this presumption.
Now, we have a firm precedent regarding the potential evidentiary value of such extrinsic evidence in cases involving testamentary intent disputes. This is another example of how expert counsel can be so beneficial: an attorney with expertise in this area can advise to create certain types of supplemental evidence when necessary.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to learn more about how courts may utilize certain evidence to determine testator intent, the presumption against intestacy in Maryland law, how to better prevent challenges from arising, or any other specific estate planning topic, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
