New York Law Review

Tag: Will Construction

  • In re Estate of Collins, 13 N.Y.2d 194 (1963): Testamentary Gift Conditioned on Having a Right of Election

    13 N.Y.2d 194 (1963)

    A testamentary gift conditioned on a surviving spouse “having a right of election” is satisfied when the spouse possesses the legal right to elect against the will, regardless of whether that right is actually exercised.

    Summary

    This case involves the interpretation of a will provision granting the testator’s wife a share of his estate in trust, but only if it was determined she had a right of election against the will. The wife failed to file a timely election. The court had to determine whether the wife’s failure to exercise her right of election barred her from receiving the testamentary gift. The New York Court of Appeals held that the bequest was conditioned solely on the determination that the wife had a right of election, not on the exercise of that right. Therefore, the wife was entitled to take under the will despite her failure to file an election.

    Facts

    Frederick Collins’ will contained a provision for his wife, Lucia, stating that if she survived him and it was determined she had a right of election against the will, she would receive a share of his estate in trust, equivalent to her intestate share under Section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law. Collins stated he believed she did *not* have this right. Lucia survived Collins, but failed to file a timely notice of election to take against the will. The lower courts determined that this failure barred her from taking under the will. It was settled that Lucia was lawfully married to the decedent at the time of his death.

    Procedural History

    The Surrogate’s Court initially addressed the issue of Lucia’s right to take a statutory share. The Appellate Division affirmed that Lucia was barred from taking a statutory share due to her failure to file a timely notice of election. The Court of Appeals dismissed a prior appeal related to that issue. The case then proceeded to the Court of Appeals solely on the issue of whether Lucia’s failure to elect also barred her from taking a testamentary share under the will.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the testator’s bequest to his wife, conditioned on a determination that she “has a right of election,” requires the wife to actually exercise that right by filing a notice of election, or whether the bequest is satisfied by the mere existence of the right to elect, even if unexercised?

    Holding

    No, the bequest was conditioned solely on the determination that the wife *had* a right of election, not on the actual exercise of that right. Therefore, the wife’s failure to file an election does not bar her from taking the testamentary share. This is because there is a difference between having a right and exercising that right.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court focused on the specific language of the will, noting the testator conditioned the bequest on a determination that his wife *had* a right of election. The Court emphasized the distinction between *having* a right and *exercising* that right. The statute itself distinguishes between the “right of election” and the exercise of that right. The court found that the testator could have conditioned the bequest on the *exercise* of the right, but he did not. To interpret the will as requiring the exercise of the right would be to add a condition not present in the will’s language. The court stated, “To say… that testator intended that respondent-appellant would not receive the bequest unless she had exercised her right of election is to ignore the very words chosen by the testator.” Courts construe will provisions that tend to defeat estates strictly, and will not interpret them to work a forfeiture unless the testator’s overriding intention is unmistakably clear. Here, no doubt existed. The court cited *Matter of Uhlfelder*, *Matter of Fischer*, *Matter of Halpern*, and *Matter of Clark* to support its holding.

  • In re Parsons’ Will, 242 N.Y. 246 (1926): Interpreting ‘Surviving’ in Will Distribution

    In re Parsons’ Will, 242 N.Y. 246 (1926)

    When a will directs property to be divided among the ‘surviving’ children of a relative after a life estate, the survivorship is generally determined at the termination of the life estate, not at the testator’s death, unless a contrary intention is clear from the will.

    Summary

    This case involves the interpretation of a will to determine who should receive a portion of the residuary estate. The testator left property to his daughter for life, and upon her death without issue, directed that it be divided among the ‘surviving children’ of his deceased brother. The court had to decide whether ‘surviving children’ meant those alive at the testator’s death or those alive when the life estate terminated. The court held that survivorship was determined at the daughter’s death, awarding the property to the one child of the testator’s brother who was alive at that time. The Court also clarified distribution of another part of the residuary estate inadvertently overlooked by the lower courts.

    Facts

    George Parsons died in 1887, leaving a will that divided his residuary estate. One part was given to his daughter, Ella, for life, with the remainder to the ‘surviving children’ of his deceased brother, John. Another portion involved a life estate for his daughter in property at Mount Pleasant, which then was to become part of the residuary estate. Ella died in 1924 without issue. At the time of the testator’s death, two children of John (Edward and Katharine) were alive. However, Edward predeceased Ella. The question arose as to whether Edward’s children should receive a share of the residuary estate, or whether Katharine, the only surviving child of John at Ella’s death, should receive it all. The lower courts also overlooked distribution of the Mount Pleasant property after Ella’s death, specifically one-half of it under clause eight of the will.

    Procedural History

    The Surrogate’s Court made a decree regarding the distribution of the estate. The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate Court’s decision. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the phrase ‘surviving children’ in the will refers to the children of the testator’s deceased brother who were living at the time of the testator’s death, or those living at the time of the life tenant’s (Ella’s) death.
    2. Whether the lower courts erred in failing to provide for the proper distribution of the Mount Pleasant property under clause eight of the will, specifically regarding the share belonging to the children of Edward Parsons.

    Holding

    1. No, because considering all the circumstances, the time of survivorship was the death of the testator’s daughter, Ella.
    2. Yes, because the will clearly directed that Edward’s children should receive his share of the Mount Pleasant property.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the testator’s primary intent in paragraph seven was to benefit his daughter and her children first. Only if she died without children would the remainder go to the surviving children of his deceased brother. The court noted the testator’s use of the phrase ‘surviving me’ in other parts of the will, indicating that when he intended survivorship to be determined at his death, he clearly stated so. Since that phrase was absent from paragraph seven, the court inferred that the testator intended survivorship to be determined at the death of the life tenant, Ella. The court stated, “In view of all the circumstances, we think the time of survivorship was the death of his daughter Ella.” Regarding the Mount Pleasant property, the court found the will’s language clear: Edward Parsons was to receive the income during his life, and upon his death, the principal was to be paid to his children. The lower courts had overlooked this provision. The court noted, “This is the plain direction of the will, which apparently has been overlooked or unprovided for in the decree of the Surrogate’s Court.”