Mahoney v. Grainger - Lecture Notes

Mistaken or Ambiguous Language in Wills Plain meaning rule: the common law bias against admitting extrinsic evidence manifests itself in the plain meaning rule: in construing and giving ef f ect to a will, the words used in the will should be given their plain meaning. As a general rule, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show that the testator used the words to mean something other than their plain meaning. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to help construe a word or phrase in a will if there is an ambiguity Majority approach: although the plain meaning rule is coming under increasing criticism, and there is a modern trend approach that rejects it, the plain meaning rule remains the majority approach. Example: the following case Name: Mahoney v. Grainger Court: SC of MA Date: 1933 Citation: 283 Mass. 189 Procedural History: Appeal from decree of a probate court denying a petition for distribution of a legacy under the will of Helen Sullivan among her first cousins who are her heirs at law. Facts: the residuary clause said that it all goes to her heirs at law living at the time of her death equally. Trial judge determined that the sole heir at law was her maternal aunt Frances Greene who is living and named in the petition for probate. Will was duly proved and letters testamentary were issued. Sullivan was a single woman, no children. Her relationship with her aunt and fi rst cousins was friendly. She gave general legacies to two of her first cousins. 10 days before death, she sent for her attorney who found her intelligent, but sick. She told him she wanted to make a will leaving it all to her cousins equally. He used the word heir at law which was her aunt. Looking at just the will, there was no ambiguity. The first cousins appealed. Issue: Can the court consider the verbal intent expressed to the attorney to construe heirs at law to include her first cousins? Holding: Af fi rmed. Cannot look outside the four corners. Only the aunt is an heir at law. Reasoning: Heirs at law includes only the aunt and not the cousins. The will was duly executed and her words to her attorney saying she meant to leave it to her cousins cannot be considered. Heirs at law is the Aunt. The lawyer made the mistake, but we can't f i x it. Only where the testamentary language is not clear can we look to outside evidence as to the meaning. Here, there's no doubt what heir at law means. Emanuel: the testatrix instructed her lawyer that she wanted to leave the residue of her estate to her 25 or so first cousins equally. She told the attorney her f i rst cousins were her nearest relatives, in fact her maternal aunt was her nearest relative. Rather than naming each of the testatrix's first cousins by name, the attorney drafted the testatrix's will so that it left the residue of her estate to her "heirs at law" thinking that the first cousins would take as the nearest relatives The testatrix properly executed the will Following the testatrix's death, the maternal aunt claimed the residue as the nearest heir at law o The first cousins of f ered extrinsic evidence to show that the testatrix intended that the residue was to go to her first couns The court applied the plain meaning rule and found that the phrase heirs at law was NOT ambiguous The extrinsic evidence was NOT admissible to establish a meaning for the phrase heirs at law that was inconsistent with the plain meaning of that phrase Criticism of the plain meaning rule: the assumption underlying the plain meaning rule is that the meaning a reader attributes to a word is the same meaning the testator attributed to the word. Moreover, if the meaning the reader attributes to the word is dif f erent from the meaning the testator attributed to the word, the plain meaning rule means that the readers meaning trumps. In as much, as the testator wrote the will and probate is about determing and giving ef fect to the testators intent, the testators meaning arguably showuld control, not the readers construction Counterargument: admiiting extrinsic evidence opens the estate to fraudulent claims and increases costs of administration (increased litigation)