In re Estate of Jones, 38 N.Y.2d 189 (1975)

A residuary clause in a will is generally interpreted broadly to avoid intestacy, and the presumption is to include property in the residuary estate unless there is affirmative evidence the testator intended otherwise.

Summary

This case concerns the interpretation of a will, specifically whether a valuable rare book collection should pass under a specific bequest clause (Article Eleventh) or a residuary clause (Article Fourteenth). The Surrogate’s Court held that the collection passed under Article Eleventh, granting a life estate to Harriet Weed with the remainder to the testatrix’s nephews and nieces. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the book collection passed under the residuary clause, granting full ownership to Harriet Weed. The court emphasized the broad interpretation given to residuary clauses to avoid intestacy, and found no clear intent to include the books in the specific bequest.

Facts

The decedent, Hershel V. Jones, left a will with several articles detailing specific bequests. Article Eleventh listed specific items of personal property to be given to Harriet C. Weed for life, with the remainder to various beneficiaries. The article did not mention books. Article Fourteenth contained a standard residuary clause, disposing of all remaining estate property not otherwise disposed of in the will. The will also contained Article Fifteenth which outlined alternative bequests if Harriet C. Weed were to predecease the testatrix or die shortly after her, including several monetary gifts to charities. The dispute centered on the “Hershel V. Jones Rare Book Collection,” valued at $80,000, which was not explicitly mentioned in the will.

Procedural History

A construction proceeding was initiated in Surrogate’s Court, Orange County, to determine the disposition of the rare book collection. The Surrogate’s Court ruled that the book collection passed under Article Eleventh of the will, granting only a life estate to Harriet C. Weed. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Pierpont Morgan Library, arguing that the collection should pass under the residuary clause, appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the decedent’s rare book collection passed under Article Eleventh of the will, which contained an enumeration of specific bequests, despite the absence of any explicit mention of books or collections in that article.

2. Whether the decedent’s rare book collection passed under Article Fourteenth of the will, the residuary clause, thus granting full ownership to Harriet C. Weed.

Holding

1. No, because Article Eleventh contains a specific list of items intended for bequest and does not contain any language suggesting an intent to include items beyond that list.

2. Yes, because residuary clauses are construed broadly to avoid intestacy, and there is no clear evidence in the will that the testatrix intended to exclude the rare book collection from the residuary estate.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the primary objective is to ascertain the testator’s intent from the language of the will. The court noted the will made no explicit reference to the rare book collection. Article Eleventh contained an enumerated list of articles of personal property specifically bequeathed, and the court found nothing to suggest any intention to include property other than that specifically identified. The court contrasted the specific bequests with the broad language of the residuary clause in Article Fourteenth: “All the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal and wheresoever situate, not herein otherwise disposed of.”

The court stated that in interpreting a residuary clause, “the consequence of exclusion would be a distribution in intestacy, a result disfavored in the law. Hence in construction of a residuary clause the predisposition is to include the property in question unless there is affirmative evidence that such was not the testator’s intention.” The Court rejected the argument that Article Fifteenth limited the scope of the residuary estate, noting that Article Fifteenth never became operative because Harriet C. Weed survived the testatrix. Even if Article Fifteenth were considered, it would only result in a partial intestacy, not a transfer of the book collection into Article Eleventh. Therefore, the Court held that the rare book collection passed to Harriet C. Weed under Article Fourteenth.