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

hearingtrialprobatewillpatent
defendantappealpleawill

Related Cases

In re Mucci’s Will, 287 N.C. 26, 213 S.E.2d 207
View Case »
In re Estate of Creech, 989 A.2d 185
View Case »
Levin v. Fisch, 404 S.W.2d 889
View Case »
In re Estate of McCreath, 240 P.3d 413
View Case »
Halstead v. Plymale, 231 N.C.App. 253, 750 S.E.2d 894
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Wolfe, 243 N.C. 469, 91 S.E.2d 246

Facts

Addie Hereford Upton, a widow without lineal descendants, executed a holographic will in 1951, which was probated after her death in 1953. The will included specific bequests to various charities and her sister, Camille H. Wolfe, but did not clearly define whether the term 'personal property' included cash, bonds, and securities. The executor sought the court's guidance on the interpretation of the will, as both the sister and the American National Red Cross claimed the residuary estate.

The pleadings establish these facts: The value of the gross estate was $33,356.55, consisting of (1) cash on hand, $221.65, (2) bank and building and loan balances, $3,193.90, (3) stocks and bonds, of the value of $29,641, and (4) household furniture and personal effects, of the value of $300.

Issue

Did the testatrix intend that the bequest of all of her 'personal property' to her sister include cash, bonds, and securities, or did she intend for these assets to pass to the American National Red Cross as her residuary estate?

Did the testatrix use the words ‘personal property‘ to denote everything she owned except real property? Defendant Wolfe says, ‘Yes.‘ Defendant Red Cross says, ‘No,‘ contending that when used in the clause, ‘I leave my furniture, household effects and personal property,‘ the ‘personal property‘ in mind was ejusdem generis, that is, tangible articles of household and personal use.

Rule

When doubt arises from a patent ambiguity in a will, it is for the court to declare the testator's intent as expressed in the will, and extrinsic evidence to explain the testator's intention is incompetent.

The authority and responsibility to interpret or construe a will rest solely on the court. Its objective is to ascertain the intent of the testator, as expressed in the will, when he made it.

Analysis

The court analyzed the will's language and the surrounding circumstances to determine the testatrix's intent. It concluded that the term 'personal property' was ambiguous and that the trial court should have considered extrinsic evidence to clarify this ambiguity. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the will must be based on the testatrix's intent at the time of its execution, taking into account the relationships and circumstances surrounding her.

The court, based solely on the will itself and the admissions, construed the will and entered judgment in favor of defendant Red Cross.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further hearing, allowing for the consideration of extrinsic evidence to ascertain the testatrix's intent.

Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of defendant Red Cross. Defendant Wolfe excepted and appealed.

Who won?

The American National Red Cross prevailed in the trial court, as the court ruled that the testatrix did not intend for the term 'personal property' to include cash, bonds, and securities.

The court's construction was that the testatrix ‘did not intend the words 'personal property’ in her legacy to the said Camille H. Wolfe to include stocks, bonds, securities and cash and did intend that said properties should pass to the defendant the American National Red Cross.

You must be