Estate of Wilson

Decision Date17 June 1988
Citation542 A.2d 838
PartiesESTATE OF George F. WILSON.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Michael T. Healy (orally), Gregory L. Foster, Verrill & Dana, Augusta, for plaintiff.

Walter T. Ollen (orally), Farris & Susi, Gardiner, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ.

McKUSICK, Chief Justice.

William and John Haefele and Carol Haefele Malmsten, the children by birth of Ann Wilson Haefele Roth, appeal a decision by the Kennebec County Probate Court in favor of Dawn and Catherine Roth and Rosalyn Roth Jean, the adopted children of Ann Wilson Haefele Roth. The Probate Court determined that the adopted children of Mrs. Roth are included in a bequest to "my grandchildren" by the late George Wilson, Mrs. Roth's father by adoption. Because competent evidence supports the court's interpretation of George Wilson's will, we affirm the judgment.

This action is a civil proceeding seeking the interpretation of a will pursuant to 18-A M.R.S.A. § 7-201 (1981). 1 The parties submitted the case to the court on George Wilson's will and on a stipulation of the following facts. In 1928 Mr. Wilson and his wife adopted their only child, Ann. She later married, becoming Ann Haefele, and at the time her father executed his will in 1959 she had three children by birth. After a divorce, Ann remarried in 1966, becoming Ann Haefele Roth, and in 1974 adopted her husband's three children from a previous marriage. Mr. Wilson died in 1967, and since that time his wife has died.

In his will George Wilson created a testamentary trust granting a life interest in the trust's income to his wife and, upon her death, to his "daughter" Ann. Mr. Wilson's will further provided that upon his daughter's death the trust's corpus and income would go to "my grandchildren who shall be living at the death of my daughter ANN WILSON HAEFELE." 2 The parties sought the Probate Court's interpretation whether the term "grandchildren" in the will includes Ann Haefele Roth's adopted children.

Faced with whether Mr. Wilson intended that a bequest to his "grandchildren" should go to his daughter's adopted as well as birth children, we again recall:

The cardinal rule of will construction is to give effect to the intent of the testator, discerned within the four corners of the instrument, bearing in mind that such intention must be related to the time when that instrument was executed. In the event of doubt or ambiguity, the court may consider circumstances outside the will for the purpose of ascertaining the testator's probable intention so long as the circumstances were known to him and may be deemed to have been in his mind at the time the will was executed.

Estate of Cushman, 501 A.2d 811, 813 (Me.1985) (citations omitted). Determining the testator's intent is a question of fact, and so we will uphold the Probate Court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See id.; Estate of Blouin, 490 A.2d 1212, 1215 (Me.1985). We apply that standard of appellate review even though the Probate Court made its findings exclusively upon an agreed statement of facts. Id.

Mr. Wilson's use of the term "grandchildren" in his will when his daughter now has both adopted and birth children presented an ambiguity that necessitated the Probate Court's resort to circumstances outside the will to determine the testator's intent in using that term. See Ziehl v. Maine Nat'l Bank, 383 A.2d 1364, 1369-70 & n. 3 (Me.1978). Because of that ambiguity the judge correctly relied on, as the most important indication of Mr. Wilson's intent, the extrinsic evidence that he himself had adopted his only child, Ann Haefele Roth, and yet continually referred to her in his will as his "daughter" and not as his "adopted daughter." Mr. Wilson was well aware of adoption as a legitimate and commonly used means of obtaining children and attached no significance to the status of adoption for the bequest he made to his daughter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Newick v. Mason
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 8, 1990
    ...not de novo. We review the Probate Court's determination of the testator's intent, a factual decision, for clear error. Estate of Wilson, 542 A.2d 838, 839 (Me.1988); Estate of Cushman, 501 A.2d 811, 813-14 (Me.1985); Estate of Blouin, 490 A.2d 1212, 1215 (Me.1985); see also Estate of Tully......
  • Foster v. Foster
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1992
    ...reviewable under a deferential clear error standard. Titcomb v. Saco Mobile Home Sales, 544 A.2d 754, 757 (Me.1988); see Estate of Wilson, 542 A.2d 838, 839 (Me.1988). Such is the case The agreement's preamble provides: WHEREAS, Foster desires to evoke a reasonable and sufficient provision ......
  • Estate of O'Connor
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1992
    ...Court's finding of adequate disclosure is a factual finding and should be overturned only if it is clearly erroneous. Estate of Wilson, 542 A.2d 838, 839 (Me.1988); Estate of Mitchell, 443 A.2d 961, 962 (Me.1982). If any competent evidence supports the factual finding, it stands. Hamm v. Ha......
  • Estate of Hardy
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1992
    ...both questions of law for the trial court when no extrinsic evidence is presented as to the intent of the testator. See Estate of Wilson, 542 A.2d 838, 839 (Me.1988); Estate of Cushman, 501 A.2d 811, 813 (Me.1985). We review questions of law de novo and may substitute our judgment for that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT