Now Accepting New Clients!

WILLS/TRUST 26: What happens when the language of the Will or Codicil is uncertain?

WILLS/TRUST 26: What happens when the language of the Will or Codicil is uncertain? - Michigan Attorney Blog | Aldrich Legal Services - pic7

In this case example, Decedent executed her will in 2008 and executed a codicil to that will in 2011. In her will, Decedent named her niece, B, as her personal representative, with her other niece, O, to take the position if B could or would not. In the codicil, however, Decedent named O as her personal representative.

Informal Probate

Decedent passed away in 2014. O applied for informal probate and for the appointment of herself as personal representative. She was duly appointed as personal representative of Decedent’s estate, with no objections. Thereafter, O properly served the application and appointment on all interested parties, including B, who is O’s sister. An inventory was provided to all interested parties as well.

Removal as a Devisee

The 2015 inventory listed an investment account with a value of $130,896.21 as the primary estate asset. Despite the relatively low assets of the estate, no progress was made on the informal probate of the will for several years and no distributions were made. Finally, in November 2018, B petitioned for the removal of O as the personal representative. O filed a petition asserting that Decedent’s codicil entitled O to the residue of Decedent’s estate and removed B as a devisee (someone who real estate is left to) or beneficiary under the will.

The trial court thereafter scheduled a hearing to address the request for removal of O as personal representative and for the interpretation of Decedent’s codicil.

Patent Ambiguity

A patent ambiguity exists if an uncertainty concerning the meaning appears on the face of the instrument and arises from the use of defective, obscure, or insensible language.

The trial court concluded a patent ambiguity with respect to whether Decedent intended B to be removed as a beneficiary of her estate. Decedent’s will clearly stated that B was intended to be a beneficiary of the will, specifically, she was to receive the residue of Decedent’s estate. While the codicil clearly specifies an intent to remove B as personal representative, it was not so clear as to whether the codicil also modified the distribution of Decedent’s residual estate.

Court Decision

The primary goal of the Court in interpreting a will is to effectuate the intent of the testator. The court gives effect to the drafter’s intent as indicated in the plain language of the will. The will must be read with the intent expressed in the document. If there is no ambiguity, the Court is to enforce the will as written. However, if the intent of the testator cannot be gleaned solely by reference to the will because there is an ambiguity, the Court may discern the intent of the testator through other sources.

Because there is an uncertainty concerning the meaning of the codicil, the trial court could look beyond the codicil to ascertain intent. Unfortunately, the only extrinsic evidence made available was the conflicting hearing testimony of B and O. The court did not find O to be credible and found B to be generally credible.

Ultimately, the trial court determined that because the actual evidence presented to it did not provide any real guidance to resolve the patent ambiguity concerning Decedent’s intent with respect to the residue of her estate, it would simply look at the unambiguous language that was present in the codicil and apply it as written.

Do You Need an Attorney to Draft A Will?

A well drafted will can also help ensure that your children and other family members understand your wishes, thus minimizing the risk of disputes and litigation. You want to be certain that your will accomplishes what you want it to.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

MICHIGAN REAL ESTATE 95: Property owners did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves.

When the delivery of a deed is contingent upon the happening of some future event, title to the subject property will not transfer to the grantee until the event has occurred. However, in this case A and J did not place a condition upon the delivery of the deed; rather, they delivered the deed to themselves, then deposited the deed with their attorney with the instruction to record the deed only upon the happening of a future event, thereby placing a condition only upon the recording of the deed.

MICHIGAN PROBATE 57: Brother granted permanent guardianship of siblings.

At a multiday hearing to address the extension of the guardianship, the eldest children, the mother’s relatives and friends, and school personnel testified regarding the mother’s care of the children, appellant’s treatment of and interaction with the children, and the eldest siblings’ role in aiding the mother to raise the children.

FAMILY LAW 88: The trial court found that the children did not have an established custodial environment with defendant because, before the separation, he did not have a large role in the children’s lives.

The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony that, before the parties’ separation, defendant spent minimal time helping to care for the children, so its finding that the children would not have looked to defendant for guidance, discipline, the necessities of life, and parental comfort during that time was not against the great weight of the evidence.

REAL ESTATE 89: RM had not included any language in the deed providing that the property was a joint tenancy with full rights of survivorship, the property instead became a tenancy in common.

RM drafted the deed without seeking counsel and mistakenly believed that, if either she or FK died, the property would fully pass to the surviving tenant. FK’s will provided that if his wife predeceased him—which she did—the personal representative of his estate should sell any residual property that he owned and divide the cash proceeds equally among his surviving children.

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000