Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

will
trialwillappellantappellee

Related Cases

Hale v. Groce, 304 Or. 281, 744 P.2d 1289, 56 USLW 2293
View Case »
In re Gerbing’s Estate, 61 Ill.2d 503, 337 N.E.2d 29, 74 A.L.R.3d 1087
View Case »
In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 495 S.E.2d 454
View Case »
Appeal of Eliot, 74 Conn. 586, 51 A. 558
View Case »
In re Piffard’s Estate, 66 Sickels 410, 111 N.Y. 410, 18 N.E. 718
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

O’Neill v. Cox, 270 P.2d 663, 1954 OK 128

Facts

Lester O'Neill contested the will of his father, William Rademacher, claiming he was a pretermitted heir. Rademacher's will stated he had no children and left his estate to his third wife, with provisions for her sister and a church if she predeceased him. O'Neill argued that this statement was incorrect and that he was indeed Rademacher's legitimate son, born in 1903. The court found that Rademacher had intentionally omitted O'Neill from his will, despite acknowledging that the statement about having no children was likely incorrect.

The last will and testament of William Rademacher contains the following statement: ‘I hereby state and declare that I have no children and have never had any children.’

Issue

Did William Rademacher intentionally omit his son, Lester O'Neill, from his will, thereby disinheriting him?

Did William Rademacher intentionally omit his son, Lester O'Neill, from his will, thereby disinheriting him?

Rule

The intention of the testator must be ascertained from the four corners of the will, and extrinsic evidence may not be considered unless there is uncertainty on the face of the will.

The object and prime purpose in the construction of any will is to arrive at and give effect to the intention of the testator. And in ascertaining such intention the will is to be considered as a whole and the several provisions thereof in their relation to each other.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of Rademacher's will, particularly the statement that he had no children, in conjunction with the provisions that left his entire estate to his wife and subsequently to her sister and a church. The court concluded that the overall scheme of the will indicated a clear intent to exclude O'Neill as a beneficiary, despite the factual inaccuracy of the statement regarding his children.

We find support in the record to sustain each of the foregoing findings. Furthermore, we concur in the court's conclusion of law that there was a clear intent of the testator to omit appellant as a beneficiary under his will.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Rademacher's will clearly demonstrated his intent to omit O'Neill from inheriting any part of his estate.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

Who won?

Nellie Cox, as the executrix and sole devisee under the will, prevailed because the court found that Rademacher had intentionally excluded O'Neill from his estate plan.

The appellee, Nellie Cox, filed her response to appellant's petitions in which she alleged that Mary Rademacher, deceased, was the sole devisee under the will of William Rademacher, deceased, and that thereafter and on March 6, 1951, Mary Rademacher died, and that as the surviving wife and sole devisee she inherited the entire estate of her deceased husband.

You must be