Estate of Click v. Estate of Click

• Decision Date: 30 March 2012
• Docket Number: Sept. Term,2010.,No. 2430,2430
• Citation: Estate of Click v. Estate of Click, 40 A.3d 1105, 204 Md.App. 349 (Md. App. 2012)
• Parties: Estate of Steven CLICK, et al. v. Estate of Joanne CLICK, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

204 Md.App. 349

40 A.3d 1105

Estate of Steven CLICK, et al.

v.Estate of Joanne CLICK, et al.

No. 2430

Sept. Term

2010.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

March 30, 2012.

Wayne T. Kosmerl (Maria W. McKenna, Council, Baradel, Kosmerl & Nolan, PA, on the brief), Annapolis, MD, for appellant.

Susan Mays, Glen Burnie, MD, for appellee.

Panel: EYLER, JAMES R., WATTS, and JAMES P. SALMON (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

WATTS, J.

Appellants, the Estate of Steven Click and Bret W. Click, appeal the grant of summary judgment and declaratory judgment in favor of appellees, Elizabeth Smith, Rebecca Maberry, and Teresa Talley,¹ as to the construction of the Last Will and Testament of Joanne Click.² Appellants noted an appeal raising two issues,³ which we have slightly rephrased and reordered as follows:

I. Whether the circuit court erred in finding that the provisions of the third and fifth paragraphs of Joanne's Last Will and Testament were unambiguous?

II. Whether the circuit court erred in not considering extrinsic evidence of the surrounding circumstances concerning Joanne's intent?

We answer the first question in the affirmative and shall, therefore, reverse. As a result of the reversal on Issue I, we shall not address Issue II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2009, Joanne died testate. Joanne was survived by: one son, Steven William Click; ⁴ one grandson, Bret William Click (Steven's son), a minor; ⁵ three granddaughters, Elizabeth Smith, ⁶ Rebecca Maberry, and Teresa Talley ⁷ (Frank's daughters); and one sibling, Warren Walls. Dated October 25, 1999, Joanne's Last Will and Testament (the “Will”) ⁸ provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

I, JOANNE CLICK, a resident of EDGEWATER, MARYLAND, declare that this is my Last Will and Testament.

FIRST

I hereby revoke all previous Wills and Codicils that I have made.

* * *

THIRD

I am not married and have no spouse.

I give all my jewelry, clothing, household furniture and furnishings, personal automobiles and other tangible articles of a personal nature, or my interest in any such property not otherwise disposed of by this Will or in any other manner together with:

(a) any insurance on the property,

(b) any personal life insurance proceeds,

(c) any registered retirement savings plans, registered retirement income funds, pension plans and annuities,

(d) any income tax deferred assets,

to my one and only child: STEVEN WILLIAM CLICK.

All references in this Will to “my child” or “my children” include any and all children hereinafter born to or adopted by me.

* * *

FIFTH

To BRET WILLIAM CLICK my GRANDSON, I LEAVE THE SUM OF $1000.00

To ELIZABETH TENNANT my GRAND[D]AUGHTER, I LEAVE THE SUM OF $1000.00

To REBECCA MABERRY my GRAND[D]AUGHTER, I LEAVE THE SUM OF $1000.00

To THERESA ARNAUD my GRAND[D]AUGHTER, I LEAVE THE SUM OF $1000.00

To WARREN WALLS my BROTHER, I LEAVE THE SUM OF $5000.00

No other special gifts are left, any assets not directly disposed of in this Will shall be given to the surviving members in order of succession.⁹

On December 10, 2009, approximately two and one-half months after Joanne's death, Steven, died. Steven's son, Bret, a minor, was Steven's heir under his Last Will and Testament. On February 19, 2010, Walls, Joanne's personal representative, filed a Petition for Instructions in the Orphan's Court for Anne Arundel County. In the Petition, Walls requested that the Court “give instructions as to the meaning of the Last Will and Testament of Joanne Click dated October 25, 1999 in general” and to the following clause of the fifth paragraph: “No other special gifts are left, any assets not directly disposed of in this Will shall be given to the surviving members in order of succession.” In addition to requesting that the Court instruct as to the meaning of the fifth paragraph, Walls requested that the court issue instructions as to the distribution of Joanne's real property, asking, in pertinent part, as follows:

10. The Will was prepared by [Joanne] with the use of a computer program that provided a form last will and testament. The said Will does not contain a residuary clause.

11. [Joanne] died testate owning real property located at 1745 Tacoma Road, Edgewater, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

12. STEVEN WILLIAM CLICK resided in the aforesaid real property with his mother, Joanne Click, for several years prior to her death.

WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays:

A. That this Court issue instructions as to the distribution of the real property of [Joanne.]

On March 12, 2010, Walls filed an Amended Petition for Instructions and for Declaratory Judgment in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.¹⁰ The amended petition added the following defendants: the Estate of Steven Click, Amy Hardesty as parent and next friend of Bret, and Smith, Maberry, and Talley. The amended petition adopted and incorporated the original petition, and added a count for declaratory judgment, in which Walls alleged the following:

4. That the language contained in the Last Will and Testament of Joanne Click may be subject to more than one interpretation regarding the distribution of the testatrix's property.

5. That the Defendants are Interested Persons of The Estate of Joanne Click.

6. That the Defendant, The Estate of Steven Click, has taken a position as to how the testatrix's property must be distributed pursuant to The Last Will and Testament of Joanne Click, while Defendants, Elizabeth A. Click Smith, Rebecca J. Click Maberry and Teresa Arnauld Talley, have made known a second conflicting position regarding the distribution of the same property.

On April 21, 2010, the Estate of Steven Click filed an answer. On April 30, 2010, Bret filed an answer. In their answers, as to the third paragraph of the Will, the Estate of Steven Click and Bret stated: “The Will of Joanne Click instructs that property not otherwise disposed of in the Will shall be distributed to Steven Click. The ‘property not otherwise disposed of’ includes Joanne Click's real property. As such, the real property subject to the above [-]captioned action should be distributed to [ ] Steven Click.” As to the fifth paragraph of the Will, they stated: “Joanne Click had two children, Frank Click, Jr. and Steven Click. Frank Click, Jr. predeceased his mother, Joanne Click. The only ‘surviving member[ ] in order of succession’ is Steven Click. Assuming another party to this action contends that Joanne Click's real property is ‘not disposed of in the Will,’ this Court should instruct that the real property be distributed to Steven Click.” Both requested that the circuit court order distribution of Joanne's real property to Steven.

On June 17, 2010, Smith, Maberry, and Talley filed an answer to the amended petition, arguing that “the intent of the Will ... is to distribute the rest and residue of this estate equally among the legatees identified therein.”

On September 15, 2010, appellants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Hearing. In the motion, appellants requested that the third paragraph of the Will be read as instructing distribution of Joanne's real property to Steven and that the fifth paragraph be read as instructing that “Joanne Click's residuary estate shall be distributed to Joanne Click's surviving members in order of succession which is declared to mean Joanne Click's only surviving child at the time of her passing, Steven Click.” In the memorandum in support of the motion, appellants argued that Joanne intended to leave her real property to Steven because Joanne “was appreciative of the efforts that ... Steven [ ] put toward Joanne Click and her needs[,]” whereas Joanne's relationships with Smith, Maberry, and Talley were “strained” and “caused her great discontent.” Appellants argued that Joanne's intent was expressed within the Will and, alternatively, by the surrounding circumstances at the time the Will was made. Appellants attached affidavits from various of Joanne's friends, in which each affiant attested that Joanne intended to leave her house to Steven, and most attested that Joanne's relationships with Smith, Maberry, and Talley were strained and damaged.

On October 4, 2010, Smith, Maberry, and Talley filed an answer to appellant's motion for summary judgment and filed their own motion for summary judgment. In the answer and motion, Smith, Maberry, and Talley argued as follows:

3. This cases presents a strict legal question—to determine the meaning of the will from its four corners.

4. There is no ambiguity in the will, and Defendants Elizabeth Smith, Teresa Talley and Rebecca Maberry are entitled to a declaration of the construction of the will as a matter of law.

* * *

WHEREFORE, Defendants Smith, Talley and Maberry pray this Honorable Court will declare that the meaning of the Will which is the subject of this litigation is to distribute the rest and residue of this estate equally among the legatees identified therein.

On October 22, 2010, appellants filed a reply to Smith, Maberry, and Talley's answer and an opposition to Smith, Maberry, and Talley's motion for summary judgment. Appellants argued that Maryland law “dictates that Joanne Click's will must be construed to reflect her intent.” Appellants contended that the construction of the Will urged by Smith, Maberry, and Talley ignored Joanne's “intent as expressed in the four corners of the Will and even further ignore[d] the surrounding circumstances that existed at the time that Joanne Click executed her Will.” On October 29, 2010, appellants filed a supplement to their motion for summary judgment. The supplement incorporated the 1988 Will. Appellants argued that “[c]onsidering the ‘surrounding circumstances,’ the two Wills taken together indicate that Joanne Click intended that her granddaughters, Smith, Talley and Maberry, were only ever to receive a specific bequest, that is, $1,000.”

On November 29, 2010, the circuit court held a motions hearing. During the hearing, the following...