Carlisle v. Carlisle's Estate, 46306
| Decision Date | 04 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46306,46306 |
| Citation | 252 So.2d 894 |
| Parties | Steven Earl CARLISLE, Minor, by Mattie J. Carlisle, next friend, Complainant/Appellant, v. ESTATE of Addie W. CARLISLE, Deceased, Wood B. Hall, Administrator, C.T.A., Respondent/Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ramsey, Bodron & Thames, Vicksburg, for appellant.
Dent, Ward, Martin & Terry, Vicksburg, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Steven Earl Carlisle, minor, from an adverse judgment of the Chancery Court of Warren County wherein the chancellor construed the word 'home' in the holographic will of Addie W. Carlisle to connotate a house and two acres of contiguous land.
The testatrix and her husband formerly lived in Sharkey County on a tract of land owned by the husband. In 1952 the couple, who had no children, moved to Warren County to reside in the family home of Mrs. Carlisle's deceased father, who in 1932 had partitioned the home and 58.4 acres to Addie.
Addie lived in the family home with her sister Alice Carlisle while Earl, her husband, was constructing another house upon the 58.4-acre tract. In 1954 Earl and Addie moved into their new home leaving Alice residing in the old family home.
Earl died in 1957 and Addie thereafter executed a holographic will as follows:
'Feb. 1958
Earl's Request. At my death place on Steele's Bayou go to Alice Carlisle's children.
His possessions at his home go to Steven Earl Carlisle also one half the value of the home. Addie W. Carlisle.
To whomsoever looks after me I want them fully paid
I also leave my sister Alice a home for as long as she lives.
After all debts are paid what is left to go to Alice Carlisle's children.
Addie W. Carlisle.'
In 1962 Alice also left the old family home, having built a new house on lands which were partitioned to her by her father in 1932. Alice continued to reside upon this tract until her death in 1970. She was survived by her five children, Evelyn Grier, Mildred Edwards, W. C. Carlisle, Malcolm Carlisle and John C. Carlisle. Appellant, Steven Earl Carlisle, is the son of John C. Carlisle, grandson of Alice, and great nephew of testatrix Addie Carlisle.
Addie spent her latter years upon her property and continued to live in the home built by her late husband. The record indicates that she was extremely active and enjoyed the full use of this property by walking over it, planting gardens and picking berries thereon.
Following her death in 1968 her will was admitted to probate in the Chancery Court of Warren County. Appellant/devisee, Steven Earl Carlisle, filed a petition in the chancery court for construction of the will, contending that the testatrix intended that he should receive one-half the value of the entire 58.4-acre tract upon which the house is situated. Appellees contend that the testatrix intended only to bequeath one-half the value of the house and curtilage.
At the first trial the lower court held that the first paragraph of the holographic will was not the will of the testatrix and dismissed the petition. This Court reversed in Carlisle v. Estate of Carlisle, 233 So.2d 803 (Miss.1970), and remanded the case for the lower court to construe that part of the will devising Steven Earl Carlisle 'also one-half the value of the home.'
The lower court on remand held that the testatrix did not intend the word 'home' to be construed as meaning one-half the value of the entire 58.4-acre estate and that the word 'home' included only the house, outbuildings, and a curtilage of two acres.
Feeling aggrieved, complainant appeals and assigns as error the action of the chancery court in limiting the devise to only one-half of the value of two acres of land upon which the house is situated rather than finding the appellant to be entitled to one-half of the value of the entire 58.4 acres of land, including the dwelling.
It is well established that when the language of a will is clear, no extrinsic evidence is admitted to show testator's intent. Where the language of a will is ambiguous or uncertain, however, extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine the intention of the testator. The admissibility of extrinsic evidence was discussed by this Court in Strickland v. Delta Investment Company, 163 Miss. 772, 774, 137 So. 734, 736 (1931):
* * * If the terms of a will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Brasell
...one item of property, parol evidence is admissible to determine which property the testator intended to bequeath. Carlisle v. Carlisle's Estate, 252 So.2d 894 (Miss.1971); Welch v. Welch, 147 Miss. 728, 113 So. 197 (1927). The question in the present case is whether or not the inclusion of ......
-
Rosenbaum v. Fliegelman, 51423
...duty of the Court are: Seal v. Seal, 312 So.2d 19 (Miss.1975); In re Granberry's Estate, 310 So.2d 708 (Miss.1975); Carlisle v. Estate of Carlisle, 252 So.2d 894 (Miss.1971); King v. King, 234 Miss. 862, 108 So.2d 220 (1959); Kyle v. Wood, 227 Miss. 717, 86 So.2d 881 (1956); and Brumfield v......
-
Estate of Neill v. Earls
...whether the terms in question were used in their legal sense; and extrinsic evidence is admissible to clear up the ambiguity[.] Carlisle, 252 So.2d at 895 quotation marks omitted) (quoting Strickland v. Delta Inv. Co., 163 Miss. 772, 137 So. 734, 736 (1931)). --------- ...
-
Hines v. Earls (In re Neill)
...are plain ..., taking the whole instrument into consideration," and "the language of [the] will is clear." Carlisle v. Carlisle's Est. , 252 So. 2d 894, 895 (Miss. 1971). If the language used in a devise "only allows one interpretation as to how the testator's property is distributed, the w......