Lendecke's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 23 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 2818,2818 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Mary F. LENDECKE, Deceased. FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, a Wyoming Corporation, Rev. R. L. Bell, Eula Jones, Myrtle Daugherty, Kenney Sailors Boys Ranch, Cora Joy, Inie Anderson, Rev. E. W. Harrison, Edith Mills, Tendis Gardner, Marie Alexander, Bertha Harris, Ella Hanks and Lena Totten, Objectors and Appellants, v. STOCK GROWERS NATIONAL BANK of Cheyenne, Wyoming, Executor and Respondent, and Minnie M. Parker, Jennie B. Hubbard, Albert E. Hubbard, Hubert Hubbard and Betty Jane Nickerson, Heirs-at-Law and Respondents. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Lathrop, Lathrop & Tilker, Carleton A. Lathrop, Cheyenne, for objectors and appellants.
Marshall S. Reynolds, Cheyenne, for heirs-at-law and respondents.
Loomis, Lazear & Wilson, Cheyenne, for executor and respondent.
Heard before BLUME, C. J., and HARNSBERGER and PARKER, JJ.
Mary F. Lendecke, a resident of Laramie County, Wyoming, died there May 10, 1956, leaving a will which, after providing for the payment of debts and expenses, stated in the second paragraph thereof:
'I give devise and bequeath, all of my estate, real, personal and mixed, wheresoever located, and of whatsoever consisting, to the following:
'First Christian Church, Cheyenne Wyoming $12,000.00
'Wyoming Children's Home Society Cheyenne, Wyoming $1,000.00
* * *
* * *
'Minnie M. Parker, Cheyenne, Wyoming $1,000.00
'Jennie B. Hubbard, Cheyenne, Wyoming $1,000.00
* * *
* * *
'Hubert Hubbard, Cheyenne, Wyoming $1.00
'Betty Jane Hubbard, Cheyenne, Wyoming $1.00'
(Twenty-two other beneficiaries--some, institutions; some, individuals--were listed as entitled to receive $1,000 each.) The remainder of the paragraph related to money owing testatrix, disposition of personal belongings, and funeral arrangements and services. The third paragraph appointed the Stock Growers National Bank of Cheyenne as executor. There was no residuary disposition.
The inventory and appraisement showed a total value of $125,853.68; the final accounting disclosed total assets of $137,608. The executor's final report and petition for distribution stated that the will did not provide for the disposition of the residue and remainder of the estate of the deceased, after payment of debts, expenses, and the amounts specified in the will, and requested that it be set over to the heirs, share and share alike, under the laws of descent and distribution of the State of Wyoming; that is, Minnie M. Parker, sister, one-fourth; Jennie B. Hubbard, sister, one-fourth; Albert E. Hubbard, brother, one-fourth; and Hubert Hubbard and Betty Jane Nickerson, children of deceased's brother, Carl F. Hubbard, one-eighth each.
Fourteen of the beneficiaries named in the will objected to the executor's report and petition and in effect urged that under the terms of the will all of the residue descended to the beneficiaries therein named. Following a hearing on the executor's petition and the objections thereto, the trial court approved the executor's final report and petition for distribution, holding that the testatrix had provided in her will for the payment of the certain bequests listed therein and that the rest, residue, and remainder of said estate after the payment of said bequests, claims, taxes, costs of administration, and fees should be set over and distributed to the heirs at law, who were found to be as hereinabove noted. From this order the present appeal has been prosecuted.
The question before us is, What did the testatrix mean in the second paragraph of her will? To state the problem more specifically, Did she intend the beneficiaries named in the will to receive only the amounts which she specified, or did she by using 'all' and related words intend that the named beneficiaries receive her entire estate--notwithstanding the recitation of an amount of money following the name of each beneficiary? A preliminary reading of the will's second paragraph discloses that the statements therein are in serious conflict. If we are to say that all of the estate passed to the beneficiaries named therein, when we must as a corollary hold that the designation of the amounts listed constituted no limitations, but were in fact meaningless. On the other hand if we say that the amounts listed are controlling, we thereby render nugatory the testatrix' use of the word 'all.' The respective parties to the litigation have in their arguments solved the matter by electing to emphasize words which suit their purposes and by ignoring words which do not accord with the desired interpretation. We do not think that the problem can be solved so easily. Neither do we agree that the issues in this case can be determined solely by applying any one of the numerous general principles of law which have been called to our attention. For instance, one rule which at first would seem to have a bearing on the case is:
'* * * where the will does not dispose of all of the testator's property, that portion of his estate which is undisposed of goes as intestate property to the heirs * * *.' 96 C.J.S. Wills § 1225, p. 1070.
However, this principle is of no assistance until the important question in the case has been answered: Did the testatrix effectively dispose of that part of her estate which was over and above the amounts listed as legacies? We cannot assume an answer to this question but must look to the applicable law and pertinent evidence for determination of the point.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas v. Newell
...of Article III would destroy the provisions of Article X. These contentions evidence the ambiguity. See In re Estate of Lendecke, 79 Wyo. 27, 329 P.2d 819 (1958). Either Article X stands alone in disposition of the Converse County property or Article III disposes of such since deceased surv......
-
In re Estate of Seader
...American Nat. Bank of Cheyenne, 571 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo.1977). The courts will not supply words for the testator. In re Lendecke's Estate, 79 Wyo. 27, 329 P.2d 819, 822 (1958). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 2-6-112 (LexisNexis 2003), which requires wills to be in writing, precludes ascribing to a testat......
-
Ogburn's Estate, In re
...the words 'of my estate.' To ignore the qualifying language would also be to ignore fundamental tenets of construction. In re Lendecke's Estate, 79 Wyo. 27, 329 P.2d 819; State Board of Equalization v. Courtesy Motors, Inc., Wyo., 362 P.2d 134, 136. As we view it, the proper answer lies som......
-
EGW v. First Fed. Sav. Bank of Sheridan
...for a testator where the will is clear and unambiguous. Kortz v. American Nat. Bank of Cheyenne , supra ; Matter of Estate of Lendecke , 79 Wyo. 27, 329 P.2d 819 (1958).In the case before us, the testator, Verlie O. Altman, quite unambiguously expressed his intent that anyone entitled to a ......