Gillespie v. Davis, 910216
| Decision Date | 08 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 910216,910216 |
| Citation | 410 S.E.2d 613,242 Va. 300 |
| Parties | Anne L. Davis GILLESPIE, et al., v. C. Lee DAVIS. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Lois C. Hardy, for appellants.
R. Norris Bloxom (Howard C. Wessels, II, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
In this case involving the construction of a will, the main issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly decided that the testator intended to give a business associate the right to purchase from the testator's devisees a parcel of land for its fair market value.
William J. Gillespie, the testator, was a resident of Wallops Island in Accomack County. He was a civil engineer and a successful contractor engaged for many years in the manufacture of ready-mix concrete and concrete abutments. The business was conducted on the property in question, one of eight parcels of realty owned by the testator; it was "a fenced-in compound of approximately four-and-a-half acres" located at a highway intersection near Chincoteague.
Appellee C. Lee Davis, a friend of the testator's for "approximately thirty years," became the testator's business associate in 1980. Several years later, the testator decided to retire from the business, which Davis continued to operate at the site. Davis leased the property from the testator who maintained an office on the premises. During the next few years, the testator gave Davis "invaluable" assistance in the operation of the business, refusing "many times" Davis's offer of compensation. According to Davis, "it was almost like he was a father to me."
In May 1988, the testator executed the will in question, a three-page typewritten document. He died on February 3, 1989, and the will was duly probated. The appellants, Anne L. Davis Gillespie, Martha Louise Storer, and Caroline Denmon Wyly are the devisees under the will. Gillespie, also known as Anne L. Davis, is the testator's widow and qualified as executrix of the estate. Storer and Wyly are the testator's stepdaughters.
This controversy was generated by the third and sixth clauses of the will. They provide as follows, complete with spelling errors:
"Third, I give and devise all of my realestate to Mrs. H.E. Storer, Mrs. C.J. Wyly, Jr., and Mrs. Anne L. Davis. They are to share equally and the disposal will be in their hands.
....
"Sixth --It is my desire that Lee Davis, the present renter of the shop area, (fenced-in compound) be allowed to purchase that area and the equipment I own in that area for the fair market value. The equipment includes one D-7 Catepillar bulldozer, John Deere backhoe, Lorain 25-ton crane with 100' of boom, Mack tractor and 33-ton capacity LaCrosse trailer, acetelyne cutting touch with bottles and Cart, Dewalt radial saw (in carpenter shop) and a 4
In August 1990, Mr. Davis instituted the present proceeding by a bill for declaratory judgment in equity, naming the devisees defendants. Referring to the sixth clause of the will, Davis asserted that he desired to purchase the realty in question from the devisees for what he alleged was the fair market value of $189,500, but that the devisees had "failed and refused to convey same to him pursuant to the provisions of the will." Davis asked the trial court to interpret the will, to adjudicate whether he has the right to purchase the realty, and to establish its fair market value.
Responding by answer and cross-bill, the devisees asserted that the proper interpretation of the will is that the testator gave all his real property, including the parcel in question, to them "to do with as they saw fit." They asserted that the language in the sixth clause "is merely precatory in nature and expresses a wish or request of the testator, not a positive command or directive necessary to establish rights of [Davis] in or to the subject real property; and that [Davis] has no right to purchase the subject property under the provisions of said Last Will and Testament."
Additionally, the devisees alleged that the property's fair market value was $300,000. The devisees asked the trial court to interpret the will in a manner which would sustain their assertions.
Following an October 1990 ore tenus hearing, during which the chancellor considered extrinsic evidence over the devisees' objection, the trial court ruled in favor of Davis. The court decided that the testator's intent was to grant Davis the right to purchase the parcel in question from the devisees and that its fair market value was $197,750. The court ordered the devisees to convey the property to Davis for that amount. From a November 1990 final decree incorporating those rulings, we awarded the devisees this appeal.
"The cardinal principle of will construction is that the intention of the testator controls; the problem is to ascertain it." Clark v. Strother, 238 Va. 533, 539, 385 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1989). A court construing a will must determine the testator's intent from the language of the document, if possible. Baker v. Linsly, 237 Va. 581, 585, 379 S.E.2d 327, 329 (1989).
Extrinsic evidence may never be used in aid of the interpretation of a will if the language is clear and unambiguous. Coffman's Adm'r v. Coffman, 131 Va. 456, 461, 109 S.E. 454, 456 (1921). But there are various ways of expressing the same thought and there are many different shades of meaning which a group of words may convey; individuals differ in their knowledge of grammar and in their manner of expression. These factors often give rise to cases where the language of a will is ambiguous, susceptible to more than one interpretation. In such cases, two classes of extrinsic evidence may be admitted: (1) so-called "facts and circumstances" evidence and (2) so-called "declarations of intention" evidence. Id. at 461-64, 109 S.E. at 456-57.
The first class involves evidence about the testator, the testator's family and property; the claimants under the will and their relationship to the testator; the testator's hopes and fears; the testator's habits of thought and language; and similar matters. The second class is confined to cases of "equivocation," that is, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larsen v. Stack
...S.E.2d 115 (2014). The "cardinal principle" of will construction is that the intention of the testator controls. Gillespie v. Davis , 242 Va. 300, 303, 410 S.E.2d 613 (1991). The intention of the testator serves as the "polar star" to guide and direct the interpretation of the will. Feeney ......
-
Mirman v. Clements
...it." Westmoreland Cty. Volunteer Rescue Squad v. Melnick, 243 Va. 222, 224, 414 S.E.2d 817, 818, (1992) (quoting Gillespie v. Davis, 242 Va. 300, 303, 410 S.E.2d 613, 615 (1991)). "This intention must be ascertained, if possible, from the language of the document." Id.; see also Harbour v. ......
-
Huaman v. Aquino, Record No. 051798.
...principle of will construction is that the intention of the testator controls; the problem is to ascertain it." Gillespie v. Davis, 242 Va. 300, 303, 410 S.E.2d 613, 615 (1991) (citing Clark v. Strother, 238 Va. 533, 539, 385 S.E.2d 578, 581 (1989)). The testator's intent should be determin......
-
Lynchburg College v. Central Fidelity Bank
...a will, a court must ascertain the intent of the testator from the language of the document, if possible. Gillespie v. Davis, 242 Va. 300, 302-04, 410 S.E.2d 613, 615 (1991), decided today. If it is made "clear" that the testator intended there should not be an apportionment of taxes, such ......