Estate of Beare, In re
| Decision Date | 06 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 62675,62675 |
| Citation | 880 S.W.2d 562 |
| Parties | In re the ESTATE OF Lloyd BEARE, Deceased. Joseph J. BECKER, et al., Respondents, v. Stephen C. BEARE, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Courtney Shands, Jr., Kohn, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, St. Louis, for appellants.
Joseph J. Becker, Sharon E. Burke, Becker, Dufour, Yarbrough, Berndsen & Burke, Clayton, David P. Oetting, Daniel M. Berger, Curtis, Oetting, Heinz, Garrett & Soule, P.C., St. Louis, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the Probate Division of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County construing the will of Lloyd Beare. Appellants, Stephen C. Beare and Lloyd M. Beare, contend that the trial court erroneously revoked a trust in their favor. Reversed and remanded.
Lloyd and Patricia Beare were married on April 7, 1965, and remained married for twenty-five years until they divorced on May 18, 1990. During their marriage, the couple had two sons (appellants). In addition, Lloyd had four older children by a prior marriage (respondents). On July 13, 1990, Lloyd died testate. His will, dated June 1, 1983, was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to his attorney. The will gave Lloyd's wife Patricia a life estate in a pecuniary bequest, with a remainder to appellants if Patricia survived Lloyd or, alternatively, directly to appellants if Patricia were to predecease Lloyd.
The pertinent language in the will provides:
ARTICLE THREE: Bequest of residue. I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of the property which I may own at the time of my death ... to JOSEPH J. BECKER, as Trustee, in trust, to hold and administer the same ... as hereinafter provided.
* * * * * *
(1) If my wife, PATRICIA M. BEARE, shall survive me, the Trustee shall set aside as a separate trust, to be held and administered in accordance with the provisions of the Spouse's Trust, an amount which, when added to the total of other assets allowable as a marital deduction in the Federal Estate Tax proceedings in my estate, will equal One Million Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 ($1,500,000.00)....
* * * * * *
All remaining trust property shall be held and administered by the Trustee in accordance with the provisions of the Family Trust.
(2) If my said wife should predecease me, all of the property constituting the bequest in Article 3 Paragraph 1, shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) To my two children, Stephen C. Beare and Lloyd M. Beare, in equal shares, share and share alike to be distributed as follows:
(i) To each child who has reached the age of twenty-five (25) years and survives me, his share outright.
(ii) If either child is under the age of twenty-five (25) years such child's share in trust under the provisions of the Children's Trust in Article 6 of this my Last Will and Testament.
* * * * * *
(2) During the lifetime of my wife, the Trustee shall pay to her the entire net income of this trust in monthly or other convenient installments, but not less frequently than annually;
* * * * * *
(3) Upon the death of my wife, any accrued or undistributed income in this trust shall be paid to the estate of my wife and the entire principal of this trust shall be disposed of as follows:
* * * * * *
(a) The Trustee shall, unless my wife's will directs otherwise ... pay ... the taxes payable by reason of my wife's death....
* * * * * *
(b) The remaining corpus, after the deductions provided in paragraph 3(a) above shall have been made, in equal shares to our two children, Lloyd M. Beare and Stephen C. Beare, share and share alike, subject to the restrictions contained in paragraph (c).
* * * * * *
(c) If, at the time of my wife's death, either of the children, Lloyd M. Beare and Stephen C. Beare, born of my marriage with Patricia M. Beare shall be under the age of twenty-five (25) or shall have predeceased her, then that child's share shall be paid to the Trustee and administered in accordance with the provisions of the Children's Trust hereinafter set out in Article Six. If at the time of my wife's death, either of these said children shall have attained the age of twenty-five (25), then such child's share shall be distributed to him outright.
The Trustee shall hold the entire trust estate in trust for the benefit of my mother, DOROTHY E. BIGGS, and my children, JOHN L. BEARE, JAMES P. BEARE, JAN E. TERRY, JEFFERY J. BEARE, LLOYD M. BEARE and STEPHEN C. BEARE.
(a) One Hundred and 00/100 ($100.00) Dollars per month or such sum as the Trustee in his sole discretion determines she needs for her health, welfare, maintenance and support, to my mother, DOROTHY E. BIGGS....
* * * * * *
(b) One thousand and 00/100 ($1,000.00) Dollars per month to each of my children....
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
(5) Upon the death of my mother, or when my youngest living child attains the age of twenty-one (21) years, whichever event shall be later, the principal of the trust shall be distributed free and clear of trust as provided hereafter. The Trustee is directed to divide the principal and any accrued income of the trust estate into equal shares, one such share for each child of mine....
* * * * * *
The Trustee shall distribute to each child or descendant who has reached the age of twenty-one (21) years said child's or descendant's share of the trust principal free and clear of trust.
(1) The Trustee is directed to divide this entire trust estate into such number of equal shares as may be necessary and sufficient to provide one such share for each child born of my marriage with PATRICIA M. BEARE who shall then be living under the age of twenty-five (25)....
Before Patricia and Lloyd Beare were divorced, they had been separated for two and one half years. Lloyd Beare was in the hospital for three weeks before he died. He did not change his will before his death, although he discussed doing so.
When Lloyd signed his will in 1983 his estate was worth approximately three million dollars. At the time of this action, which followed on the heels of a divorce settlement and the collection of federal estate taxes, his net estate was valued at approximately 1.4 million dollars.
This action was commenced by the personal representative who, after alleging the existence of a dispute among the several legatees regarding the interpretation of Article Three of the will, said he was uncertain to whom the bequests in the will should be paid. The personal representative asked the Probate Division to construe the will, and the parties filed their pleadings.
Appellants maintained that the will was not ambiguous and that appellants were entitled to the first 1.5 million dollars of the estate, which is to say all of it. Respondents position was that the will was ambiguous and properly construed, the entire estate was to go into the residuary trust. The trial court ruled that the will was ambiguous and allowed external evidence of Lloyd's intent. The trial court, upon hearing the evidence, ruled that the provisions in the will regarding the marital trust were invalid including the provisions that gave appellants a remainder and ordered that the entire estate be placed in the residuary trust. In the written opinion issued the trial court states:
the provision in the will that Patricia M. Beare must predecease the decedent before Stephen and Lloyd Michael take under paragraph (2) prevails over the provision in section 474.420 that a spouse is considered by legal fiction to have died at the time of the divorce. Patricia M. Beare did not predecease decedent, the condition of paragraph (2) was not met, the paragraph is not operative, and Stephen and Lloyd Michael do not take under it.
In essence, the trial court held that the provision in the will creating a life estate in Patricia and a remainder in appellants was not met because Patricia did not in fact die, even though the relevant statute provides that the will is to be construed as though the spouse predeceased upon divorce. § 474.420, RSMo 1986. For the reasons stated below we disagree.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. Whether an ambiguity exists in a will is a question of law and the reviewing court is free to make its own determination as to the meaning of the will. Boatmen's Trust Co. v. Sugden, 827 S.W.2d 249, 254 (Mo.App.1992); Naylor v. Koeppe, 686 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo.App.1985). We review declarations of law de novo. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We differ with the trial court's holding that the will was ambiguous. A reading of the will indicates that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Hermon
...Thus, each pertinent provision of the will is to be construed as though the divorced spouse predeceased the testator." (In re Estate of Beare (1993) 880 S.W.2d 562, 566.) The parties' principal arguments here and below can be summarized as follows: Decedent's former stepchildren (respondent......
-
Estate of Straube v. Barber
...reviewing court makes its own determination of whether or not an ambiguity exists, 3 and "as to the meaning of the will." In re Estate of Beare, 880 S.W.2d at 565. When the issue is the construction of a will based upon the language used in the will, we do not give deference to the trial co......
-
Switzer v. Mercantile Bank of St. Louis, N.A.
...v. Mid-Am. Marine, 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993); Lehr v. Collier, 909 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Mo.App. S.D.1995); In Re Estate of Beare, 880 S.W.2d 562, 565 (Mo.App.1993). III. De Novo Switzer cannot bring a cause of action against the bank unless he has standing. To have standing, Switzer m......
-
Ittner v. United Missouri Bank of St. Louis, N.A.
...we may properly make our own determination. Boatmen's Trust Company v. Sugden, 827 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App.1992)[9-11]; In re Estate of Beare, 880 S.W.2d 562 (Mo.App.1994)[1-3]. A patent ambiguity occurs when the duplicity, indistinctness, or uncertainty of meaning appears on the face of the ins......