Heberlein v. Eberth (In re Estate of Phillips)

• Decision Date: 28 December 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09196,957 N.Y.S.2d 778,101 A.D.3d 1706
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Gary M. PHILLIPS, Deceased. Kelly E. Heberlein, as Executor of the Estate of Gary M. Phillips, Deceased, Petitioner–Appellant; Cheril M. Eberth, Allison M. Alberti, Respondents–Appellants, and Lorrie MacDiarmid, Respondent–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 1706

957 N.Y.S.2d 778

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09196

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Gary M. PHILLIPS, Deceased. Kelly E. Heberlein, as Executor of the Estate of Gary M. Phillips, Deceased, Petitioner–Appellant; Cheril M. Eberth, Allison M. Alberti, Respondents–Appellants, and Lorrie MacDiarmid, Respondent–Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 28, 2012.

Feuerstein & Smith, LLP, Buffalo (Mark E. Guglielmi of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant and Respondents–Appellants.

The Law Office of Robert Weig, Lancaster (Robert E. Weig of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking construction of certain provisions of the last will and testament (will) of her father, Gary M. Phillips (decedent). In the will, decedent devised his property to petitioner and her sisters, respondents Cheril M. Eberth and Allison M. Alberti (collectively, daughters) and his live-in girlfriend, Lorrie MacDiarmid (respondent). Thereafter, petitioner moved for summary judgment, contending that the third and fourth articles of the will are ambiguous and require Surrogate's Court to consider extrinsic evidence in order to construe the meaning of those articles. Respondent cross-moved for summary judgment, contending that the will is unambiguous and thus that the Surrogate is precluded from considering extrinsic evidence in construing the will. The Surrogate in effect granted that part of petitioner's motion with respect to her proposed construction of article three and that part of respondent's cross motion with respect to her proposed construction of article four. We agree with the daughters that the Surrogate erred in granting that part of respondent's cross motion with respect to the construction of article four and that extrinsic evidence is necessary to resolve the latent ambiguity in that article.

Initially, we note that we further agree with the daughters that respondent's challenge to the Surrogate's construction of article three of the will is not properly before us inasmuch as respondent failed to take a cross appeal from the order ( see Harris v. Eastman Kodak Co., 83 A.D.3d 1563, 1564, 921 N.Y.S.2d 766;Matijiw v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 292 A.D.2d 865, 866, 740 N.Y.S.2d 177;see generallyCPLR 5515[1] ). With regard to article four of the will, we note as background that, at the time of his death, decedent owned a lot measuring 120 feet by 300 feet (lot), upon which his house and a garage were located. Decedent also owned 88 acres of land adjacent to the lot. The 88–acre parcel (hereafter, farmland) included a “pole barn” that decedent used to house his tractor and cows. In article four of the will, decedent bequeathed his residence “ and the plot of land appurtenant thereto ” to respondent (emphasis added). That article provides that, “[i]f any balance of a mortgage, loan, or encumbrance against the said residence, or the plot of land appurtenant thereto, remains unpaid at the time of my death, then I direct that the recipient or recipients of such property shall receive the property subject to the said mortgage, loan or encumbrance” (emphasis added). The fifth article of the will granted to the daughters in equal shares “the rest, residue and remainder of [decedent's] property, both real and personal, of whatsoever kind and nature and wherever located, to which [decedent] may be entitled in any manner at the time of [his] death.”

In the petition, petitioner contended with respect to article four of the will that the phrase “the plot of land appurtenant thereto” referred to the lot on which decedent's residence was located, not to the farmland. Petitioner attached extrinsic evidence supporting her proposed construction of article four as exhibits to the petition. In opposing the admission of that extrinsic evidence, respondent contended that, under the plain language of article four of the will, she was entitled to the residence, the lot, and the farmland.

As noted above, petitioner moved and respondent cross-moved for summary judgment. In support of her motion, petitioner contended that the phrase “the plot of land appurtenant thereto” in article four is ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence to determine decedent's intent. In opposition to petitioner's motion and in support of her cross motion, respondent contended that the terms of the will were clear and unambiguousand thus that the consideration of extrinsic evidence was precluded. The Surrogate concluded that the bequest of real property to respondent under article four consisted of decedent's residence, the lot, and the farmland. The Surrogate therefore agreed with respondent that decedent's intent could be inferred from the “four corners of the will” and thus that reference to extrinsic evidence was improper. That was error.

It is well settled that, “in a will construction proceeding, the search is for the decedent's intent ... and not for that of the draft[er]” ( Matter of Cord, 58 N.Y.2d 539, 544, 462 N.Y.S.2d 622, 449 N.E.2d 402,rearg. denied60 N.Y.2d 586, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 454 N.E.2d 127;see Matter of Bieley, 91 N.Y.2d 520, 525, 673 N.Y.S.2d 38, 695 N.E.2d 1119;Matter of Gustafson, 74 N.Y.2d 448, 451, 548 N.Y.S.2d 625, 547 N.E.2d 1152;Matter of Shannon, 107 A.D.2d 1084, 1085, 486 N.Y.S.2d 502). In ascertaining decedent's intent, “ ‘a sympathetic reading of the will as an entirety’ is required” ( Matter of Carmer, 71 N.Y.2d 781, 785, 530 N.Y.S.2d 88, 525 N.E.2d 734, quoting Matter of Fabbri, 2 N.Y.2d 236, 240, 159 N.Y.S.2d 184, 140 N.E.2d 269;see Matter of Scale, 38 A.D.3d 983, 984, 830 N.Y.S.2d 618). “[T]he best indicator of the testator's intent is found in the clear and unambiguous language of the will itself and, thus, where no ambiguity exists, [e]xtrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a will” ( Scale, 38 A.D.3d at 985, 830 N.Y.S.2d 618 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cord, 58 N.Y.2d at 544, 462 N.Y.S.2d 622, 449 N.E.2d 402;Matter of Goldstein, 46 A.D.2d 449, 450, 363 N.Y.S.2d 147,affd.38 N.Y.2d 876, 382 N.Y.S.2d 743, 346 N.E.2d 544). “If, on the other hand, a provision of the will is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is properly considered in discerning the testator's true intent” ( Matter of McCabe, 269 A.D.2d 727, 729, 703 N.Y.S.2d 559;see Matter of Schermerhorn, 31 N.Y.2d 739, 741, 338 N.Y.S.2d 111, 290 N.E.2d 149;Goldstein, 46 A.D.2d at 451, 363 N.Y.S.2d 147). “A latent ambiguity arises when the words used are neither ambiguous nor obscure but ambiguity appears relative to persons or things meant” ( Matter of Blodgett, 168 Misc. 898, 901, 7 N.Y.S.2d 364).

As noted above, decedent's will devised his residence “and the plot of land appurtenant thereto” to respondent. “Appurtenant” has been defined as “[a]nnexed to a more important thing” (Black's Law Dictionary 118 [9th ed. 2009] ). Moreover, courts have defined an appurtenance as “something annexed to or belonging to a ‘more important’ thing and not having an independent existence” ( Matter of Crystal v. City of Syracuse, Dept. of Assessment, 47 A.D.2d 29, 32, 364 N.Y.S.2d 618,affd.38 N.Y.2d 883, 382 N.Y.S.2d 745, 346 N.E.2d 546), i.e., “a thing used with and related to or dependent upon another thing more worthy ” ( Woodhull v. Rosenthal, 61 N.Y. 382, 390). Under such a definition, “land can never be appurtenant to other land, or pass with it as belonging to it” ( id.;see Armstrong v. DuBois, 90 N.Y. 95, 102). Nevertheless, a court's definition of the term “appurtenant” in the abstract “does not prevent a different meaning which any grantor may himself [or herself] give to the word as he [or she] uses it. When a grantor makes a strip of land, by express words, ‘appurtenant’ to two other pieces, his [or her] meaning is to be discovered from the context, and not from the books” ( Putnam v. Putnam, 77 App.Div. 554, 556, 78 N.Y.S. 987). Here, the will does not refer to land appurtenant to other land; rather, it refers to land appurtenant to decedent's residence ( see generally Schermerhorn, 31 N.Y.2d at 741, 338 N.Y.S.2d 111, 290 N.E.2d 149).

We conclude that the definition of “appurtenant” does not clarify decedent's intent with regard to the farmland ( see Carmer, 71 N.Y.2d at 785, 530 N.Y.S.2d 88, 525 N.E.2d 734), nor does a sympathetic reading of the entire will clarify his intent. Rather, the language in article four referring to “the plot of land appurtenant” to decedent's residence is ambiguous, and the Surrogate should have considered extrinsic evidence “ ‘to explain to what particular pieces of land the language of the will referred’ ” ( Schermerhorn, 31 N.Y.2d at 741, 338 N.Y.S.2d 111, 290 N.E.2d 149, quoting Matter of Phipps, 214 N.Y. 378, 381, 108 N.E. 554,rearg. denied215 N.Y. 652, 109 N.E. 1090;see McCabe, 269 A.D.2d at 729, 703 N.Y.S.2d 559;Matter of Schaffner, 162 A.D.2d 972, 972, 557 N.Y.S.2d 198;Goldstein, 46 A.D.2d at 450–451, 363 N.Y.S.2d 147). It is undisputed that, at the time of his death, decedent owned the lot...