Arnheiter v. Arnheiter
42 N.J. Super. 71, 125 A.2d 914 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of 'falsa demonstratio non nocet,' a court may disregard an erroneous part of a description in a will if the remaining portion of the description, aided by extrinsic evidence, is sufficient to identify the subject of the bequest with certainty. Courts will construe a will to effectuate the testator's intent but cannot reform a will by altering its text.
Facts:
- Burnette K. Guterl owned an undivided one-half interest in a property located at 317 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey.
- This was the only property interest Guterl held on Harrison Avenue at the time she executed her will and at her death.
- Guterl executed a will that directed her executrix to sell "my undivided one-half interest of premises known as No. 304 Harrison Avenue, Harrison, New Jersey."
- Guterl never owned any interest in the property at 304 Harrison Avenue.
- The will specified that the proceeds from the sale of the property were to be used to establish trusts for her two nieces.
- Guterl subsequently died, and her will was presented for probate.
Procedural Posture:
- Burnette K. Guterl's last will and testament was admitted to probate by the Surrogate of Essex County.
- Helen K. Arnheiter, the executrix of the estate, filed suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
- The suit requested that the court correct what it alleged was an obvious mistake in the will by changing the street number of a property from '304' to '317'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an erroneous street number in a property description within a will render the specific bequest void when the testator's intent can be clearly ascertained from the remaining description and extrinsic evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.S.C.
No. An erroneous street number in a property description does not render the bequest void when the testator's intent is otherwise clear from the remaining language and evidence. While a court lacks the power to reform a will by changing its text, it can apply the doctrine of 'falsa demonstratio non nocet' (a false description does not vitiate) to construe the will's meaning. By rejecting the incorrect particular—the street number "304"—the remaining description, "my undivided one-half interest of premises known as Harrison Avenue, Harrison, New Jersey," is left. As extrinsic evidence established that the decedent owned only one such property interest on that street (at number 317), the remaining description is sufficient to identify the property and give effect to the decedent's clear testamentary intent.
Analysis:
This case serves as a classic illustration of how courts use rules of construction to save a testamentary gift from failing due to a latent ambiguity, such as a scrivener's error. It reaffirms the principle that the paramount goal in will interpretation is to carry out the testator's intent. The decision distinguishes between impermissible reformation (rewriting the will) and permissible construction (interpreting the will as written), showing that courts can disregard demonstrably false details to give effect to the will's larger, evident purpose. This precedent solidifies the use of extrinsic evidence to clarify a description that is accurate in part but erroneous in another, preventing gifts from being voided by simple mistakes.
