Ganser's Estate, In re
Decision Date | 01 July 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 75-609,75-609 |
Citation | 255 N.W.2d 483,79 Wis.2d 180 |
Parties | In re ESTATE of Alma R. GANSER, Deceased. MADISON GENERAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL & SURGICAL FOUNDATION, INC., Appellant, v. GORDON G. VOLZ, Personal Representative and trustee for Estate of Alma R. Ganser, Marquette University, Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc., State of Wisconsin (Attorney General), Respondents. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is a will construction case. It involves the will of Alma R. Ganser and specifically the interpretation of Clause SEVENTEENTH thereof. The judgment appealed from awarded the respondents Marquette University (the University) and Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc. (the Medical College), a bequest under the will.
The facts are undisputed in this case, the parties having stipulated as to them at trial. Alma Ganser died on January 29, 1973. On February 6, 1973, her personal representative filed a petition for the construction of her will which had been executed on January 25, 1962. The petition requested specifically the construction of Clause SEVENTEENTH, which states:
At the time of her death, Alma Ganser owned the farm referred to in Clause SEVENTEENTH of her will. When Alma Ganser executed the will making a bequest to "Marquette University . . . for its Medical School," the Medical College, although a separate entity, was a department of the University. In 1967, however, with adoption of Restated Articles of Incorporation, the College severed its formal ties with the University. This separation was made to permit the College to receive state financial support, since the state could not support a medical school which was part of a private, secular university. Despite the separation, joint medical programs have continued to be conducted by the College and the University.
The appellant, Madison General Hospital Medical & Surgical Foundation, Inc. (the Hospital) contends that at the time of Alma Ganser's death, because of the 1967 separation, the University had no medical school and, therefore, is unable to accept the bequest "to Marquette University . . . for its Medical School." Pursuant to the gift over provision in Clause SEVENTEENTH, if the University is unable to accept the bequest, it is to be awarded to the Hospital.
The University and Medical College do not claim the bequest separately. They are joined in interest and claim that an award to Marquette University to be used in joint medical programs with the Medical College would effectuate the intent of the testatrix under Clause SEVENTEENTH. The University and Medical College have entered into an agreement, which was submitted to the probate court, outlining terms for the administration of the bequest.
The will of Alma Ganser was drafted by Edwin Pick, who was deceased at the time this proceeding was commenced. No files, records, documents or other direct evidence, besides the will itself, have been discovered which could supplement the meaning of the clause in question.
The trial court determined:
"That it was and is the intent of Alma R. Ganser, as gathered from and implied from her will, and in light of surrounding circumstances as reflected in the Record, to benefit medical education at the post-graduate level under the aegis of Marquette University in the context of Marquette's educational and philosophical principles."
In accordance with that intent, the trial court concluded, the University, because of the joint medical programs with the Medical College, was able and willing to accept the bequest within the terms of the will, and for the purposes of Clause SEVENTEENTH, the Medical College constituted "its (the University's) Medical School." The judgment directed that the bequest be administered pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the University and the Medical College.
Ronald W. Todd, Madison (argued), for appellant; S. R. Stroud, C. Vernon Howard and Stroud, Stroud, Willink, Thompson & Howard, Madison, on the brief.
Patrick K. Hetrick, Milwaukee (argued), for Marquette University; Ray J. Aiken, Milwaukee, on the brief.
T. Michael Bolger, Milwaukee (argued), for Medical College of Wis.; Darryl S. Bell, Milwaukee, on brief; Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, of counsel.
Two issues are presented on appeal:
1. What was the intention of the testatrix, Alma Ganser, in making the bequests in Clause SEVENTEENTH of her will?
2. Does an award to the respondents constitute an improper application of the doctrine of cy pres?
The paramount object of will construction is the ascertainment of the testatrix's intent. Estate of Farber, 57 Wis.2d 363, 368, 204 N.W.2d 478 (1973); Estate of Southey, 26 Wis.2d 335, 338, 132 N.W.2d 532 (1965). This intent is determined from the language of the will itself, considered in light of the circumstances surrounding the testatrix at the time of the will's execution. In re Trust of Pauly, 71 Wis.2d 306, 316, 237 N.W.2d 719 (1976); In re Trust of Bowler, 56 Wis.2d 171, 176, 201 N.W.2d 573 (1972).
Since the language of the will is the best evidence of the testatrix's intent, the court will look to it first, and if there is no ambiguity or inconsistency in the will's provisions, there is no basis for interpretation of the language used or a determination as to the testatrix's actual intent. Estate of Naulin, 56 Wis.2d 100, 104, 201 N.W.2d 599 (1972). If, however, an ambiguity exists in the language of the will, reference may then be made to the surrounding circumstances at the time of its execution. If, after such reference, the testatrix's meaning is clear, no further inquiry is necessary. Estate of Gehl, 39 Wis.2d 206, 213, 159 N.W.2d 72 (1968). When an ambiguity still persists after consideration of the surrounding circumstances, resort may finally be had to the rules of will construction and extrinsic evidence. Estate of Mangel, 51 Wis.2d 55, 65, 186 N.W.2d 276 (1971).
Language is said to be ambiguous when it is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations. "A latent ambiguity exists where the language of the will, though clear on its face, is susceptible of more than one meaning when applied to the extrinsic facts to which it refers." Estate of Gibbs, 14 Wis.2d 490, 496, 111 N.W.2d 413, 417 (1961).
In the instant case, a change in circumstances, the severance of formal ties between the University and the Medical College, has occurred since the execution of the will. While there is certainly no question, under the language of the will, as to what the testatrix intended under the circumstances which existed at the time it was executed, the will gives no clear indication as to her intent in the event this particular change in circumstances would take place. The parties' opposing interpretations of Clause SEVENTEENTH, relating to whether the Medical College is "its (the University's) Medical School" and whether the University is "unable" to accept the bequest, considered in light of the 1967 separation of the University and the Medical College, are both reasonable, and it may not be doubted that a latent ambiguity exists.
This case, therefore, turns on the determination of Mrs. Ganser's intent in making the bequest in Clause SEVENTEENTH. The trial court accepted the respondents' contention that the testatrix's intent was "to benefit medical education at the post-graduate level under the aegis of Marquette University in the context of Marquette's educational and philosophical principles." The appellant, on the other hand, argues that the testatrix's intent was to benefit a medical school which was a part of the University, her and her deceased husband's alma mater, a private, sectarian institution, the fundamental religious principles of which were of great importance to her.
Consideration of the circumstances surrounding this bequest convinces this court that the Medical College, despite the formal separation from the University, constitutes "its (the University's) Medical School" within the intent of the testatrix, Alma Ganser. The predecessor of the Medical College originated in 1907 when Marquette University and the Milwaukee Medical College joined to create the Medical Department of Marquette University. In 1911, Mrs. Ganser graduated from the Marquette University School of Nursing. When the University acquired the assets of the Wisconsin College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1913, the medical department became the Marquette University School of Medicine. Mrs. Ganser's husband, William J. Ganser, M.D., who predeceased his wife, was a 1913 graduate of the Marquette University School of Medicine....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Will of Cooney, Matter of
... ... Petitioner-Appellant-Cross Respondent-Petitioner, ... FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF KENOSHA, Personal Representative of ... the Estate of Dorothy B. Cooney, ... Claimant-Respondent-Cross Appellant ... No. 93-2508 ... Supreme Court of Wisconsin ... Oral Argument Oct. 3, ... ...
-
Firstar Trust Company v. First National Bank of Kenosha, No. 93-2508 (Wis. 12/21/1995)
... ... First National Bank of Kenosha, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy B. Cooney, Claimant-Respondent-Cross Appellant ... No. 93-2508 ... Supreme Court of Wisconsin ... Opinion Filed: December 21, ... ...
-
Macleish v. Boardman & Clark LLP
... ... decision affirming the circuit court's order dismissing their legal malpractice claim against the law firm that administered their father's estate. 2 The court of appeals assumed without deciding that the MacLeish children 924 N.W.2d 801 could bring a claim for legal malpractice based on the ... ...
-
Estate of Graef, Matter of
...stated that the paramount object of will construction is ascertainment of the testator's intention. See, e.g., In re Estate of Ganser, 79 Wis.2d 180, 255 N.W.2d 483 (1977). Graef's will was made early in his marriage, more than thirty years before his death. The will provided his wife would......