Clark v. Greenhalge
411 Mass. 410, 582 N.E.2d 949 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A document may be incorporated by reference into a will, even if not formally executed as a will, if the will expresses an intent to incorporate the document, the document is identified with reasonable certainty, and it was in existence at the time the will was executed or republished by a subsequent codicil.
Facts:
- In 1977, Helen Nesmith executed a will naming her cousin, Frederic T. Greenhalge, II, as executor and primary beneficiary.
- The will stated that Greenhalge should distribute certain tangible personal property as designated in 'a memorandum left by [her] and known to [him], or in accordance with [her] known wishes.'
- Nesmith had a formal 'MEMORANDUM' created in 1972 and amended in 1976, which listed various bequests.
- Beginning in 1979, Nesmith also kept a notebook where she periodically wrote down her wishes for the disposition of other personal items.
- In the notebook, Nesmith wrote that a specific farm painting should be given to her close friend, Virginia Clark.
- Nesmith repeatedly told Clark and her nurses of her intention to give the painting to Clark, and mentioned she would record it in her book.
- In 1980, Nesmith executed two codicils to her will, which amended certain parts but ratified the original will in all other respects.
- After Nesmith's death in 1986, Greenhalge refused to give the farm painting to Clark, claiming the notebook was not a valid testamentary instrument, and decided to keep the painting for himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia Clark commenced an action in the Probate and Family Court against Frederic T. Greenhalge, II, as executor, seeking to compel him to deliver the painting.
- The probate judge ruled in favor of Clark, finding the notebook was incorporated by reference into the will.
- Greenhalge, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court affirmed the probate judge's decision in an unpublished memorandum.
- Greenhalge petitioned for further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which the court granted.
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 a notebook containing handwritten bequests, created after a will's execution but before the execution of subsequent codicils, become incorporated by reference into the will when the will gives the executor instructions to distribute property according to 'a memorandum'?
Opinions:
Majority - Nolan, J.
Yes. A document can be incorporated by reference into a will if it embodies the testator's clear intent, even if it is not titled exactly as described in the will, so long as it was in existence at the time the will was republished by a codicil. The court reasoned that the cardinal rule in interpreting wills is to give effect to the testator's intent. Here, Nesmith clearly intended for the notebook to guide the distribution of her property, serving the exact function of the 'memorandum' mentioned in her will. The distinction between the notebook and 'a memorandum' is therefore 'illusory.' The court rejected a literal interpretation that would limit Nesmith to a single memorandum, as this would undermine her known wishes. Although the notebook was created after the 1977 will, it existed before the 1980 codicils were executed. The execution of a codicil serves to ratify and republish the original will, effectively updating the will's date of execution to that of the codicil. Therefore, the notebook was in existence at the time of the will's republication and was properly incorporated by reference.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the importance of testator intent over strict, literal interpretations of a will's language. It affirms the 'republication by codicil' doctrine, clarifying that documents created after a will but before a codicil can be incorporated by reference. The decision provides flexibility in estate planning but also serves as a cautionary tale; reliance on informal, separate writings can lead to costly litigation if the testator's intentions are not documented with maximum clarity. For future cases, this precedent encourages courts to look at the substance and purpose of an extrinsic document rather than its formal title when determining if it should be incorporated into a will.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Greenhalge