Saucier v. Saucier
| Decision Date | 27 May 1926 |
| Citation | 256 Mass. 107 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | GERTRUDE F. SAUCIER & another, trustees, v. GERTRUDE F. SAUCIER & others. |
March 24, 1926.
Present: BRALEY CROSBY, CARROLL, WAIT, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Devise and Legacy Construction against intestacy. Evidence, Extrinsic affecting writing, Presumptions and burden of proof.
In the construing of a will of doubtful meaning, evidence is admissible to show the circumstances existing and known to the testator at the time he made the will.
Evidence of statements by a testator as to his intention in using certain unambiguous language in his will and giving his own interpretation of that language is inadmissible in determining what was his intention as expressed in his will.
A construction of a will resulting in partial intestacy is not to be adopted unless plainly required.
A testator, at a time when he owned property yielding about $18,000 annually and believed that his annual income would exceed $20,000 made a will in which he established a trust with the following provisions: "I further will and direct that out of the income . . . of my said estate . . . my said trustees . . . shall pay to my said wife, during her life, three fourths of such income, . . ., provided the same does not exceed the sum of $20,000 per annum, any and all excess above said $20,000 from said . . . income . . . shall be divided and paid by my said trustees, in following proportions: . . ." There were further provisions for distribution of such excess and of the principal upon the death of the wife among three other persons. The testator was very fond of his wife, traveled with her extensively, and made lavish expenditures for her. Her sister lived with her and was dependent upon her for her support, as the testator knew. After his death, his property, which he had thought worth $750,000, yielded only $117,000 and a total annual income of less than $7,000. Upon a petition by the trustee for instructions, a decree was entered in the Probate Court that the trustee pay to the widow the entire income of the trust up to but not in excess of $20,000. Upon appeals by the other beneficiaries, it was held, that
(1) The purpose of the testator would be accomplished by interpreting the will to mean that the widow was to have the entire income of the property up to but not in excess of $20,000 per year, and that the provision for payment to her of three fourths of the income was not intended to apply until she had received that sum;
(2) No intestacy as to one fourth of the income was necessary; (3) The decree was affirmed.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Norfolk on March 4, 1924, by the trustees under the will of Francis X. Saucier, late of Needham, for instructions.
There was a hearing by Campbell, J. Material facts and evidence are described in the opinion. A decree was entered directing the petitioner to pay to Gertrude F. Saucier the entire net proceeds of the income, rents, profits and interest of the trust up to but not in excess of $20,000. The respondents Corinne Parent, Joseph Fontaine and Francis X. Trepanier appealed.
The case was submitted on briefs. H.V. Cunningham, for the respondent Francis X. Trepanier.
J.E. Swift, for the respondent Joseph Fontaine.
G.L. Mayberry, L.A. Mayberry, & J.M. Gibbs, for the respondent Gertrude F. Saucier.
This is a bill for instructions brought by trustees under the will of Francis X. Saucier. The testator married Gertrude F Saucier November 24, 1916. He made his will February 18, 1921, and died April 18, 1923, at the age of sixty-eight. After providing that his wife should have his real estate in New Hampshire, his wearing apparel, jewelry, personal effects and cash on hand at the time of his death, giving legacies of $500 each to a niece and a nephew, and providing for the discharge of any indebtedness of another nephew, he bequeathed and devised the residue of his estate to trustees with directions in part in the following terms: "I further will and direct that out of the income, rents, profits, and interest of said trust estate . . . my said trustees . . . shall pay to my said wife, during her life, three fourths of such income, rents, profits and interest, provided the same does not exceed the sum of Twenty thousand ($20,000.00) dollars, per annum, any and all excess above said twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars, from said profits, rents, interest and income from said trust estate shall be divided and paid by my said trustees, in following proportions: . . . " Provision is then made for the payment of one half of such excess to Dr. Francis X. Trepanier during his life and at his death to his heirs; one fourth to Joseph Fontaine during his life; and one fourth to Corinne Parant during her life and at her death to her heirs. Upon the death of the testator's wife the trust estate is to be divided among the same persons who are entitled to the excess of income above $20,000, with provision for increasing the share of Trepanier in case Fontaine is not living at the death of Mrs. Saucier.
When the will was made, the testator owned a stock ranch in Cuba from which his whole income, estimated then to be about $18,000, was derived. He believed that his income would exceed $20,000 per year. Before his death he sold the real estate in New Hampshire. There was a material reduction in the value of his property in Cuba after the will was made, but he considered the ranch and stock upon it to be worth $400,000, and there was evidence tending to show that at an earlier time he considered the property worth $750,000. It was sold by his executors for $117,260.90 after paying all expenses, and the total annual income of the trust was, at the time of the trial, less than $7,000. The questions asked by the trustees are, whether they should accumulate the one fourth of the income which is not disposed of, or treat it as intestate property, or pay it to the widow, Gertrude F. Saucier, who contends that she is entitled to the entire income up to $20,000.
No provision is expressly made for the disposition of one fourth of the net income in the event that has occurred. The judge of probate made a report in which he found that the testator clearly intended to give Mrs. Saucier the entire income provided it did not exceed $20,000; that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial