Dennis v. Holsapple
148 Ind. 297 (1897)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will that does not name a beneficiary is valid if it describes the beneficiary with sufficient certainty that their identity can be ascertained through the use of extrinsic evidence.
Facts:
- On April 9, 1889, Emily J. Shull executed a will.
- Clause 4 of the will stated that 'Whoever shall take good care of me and maintain, nurse, clothe, and furnish me with proper medical treatment at my request...shall have all of my property...left at my death.'
- Clause 5 of the will specified that the person selected to perform this care 'shall have a written statement signed by me to that effect.'
- On January 6, 1895, Shull sent a letter to her granddaughter, Ella Holsapple, stating she was sick and requesting Holsapple come care for her.
- The letter referenced the will, stating 'whoever stays with me at my last hours gets everything I leave.'
- In response to the letter and request, Holsapple came and provided care for Shull until her death.
- Emily J. Shull died and her will was probated on January 7, 1896.
Procedural Posture:
- Ella Holsapple filed a proceeding in the trial court against the administrator of Emily J. Shull's estate.
- Holsapple sought a construction of the will and an order directing the administrator to turn over the estate's property to her.
- The trial court found in favor of Holsapple, granting the relief she demanded.
- The administrator (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the higher court, arguing that the complaint was insufficient and the court erred in denying a motion for a new trial.
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 will that bequeaths an estate to an unnamed person, described as whoever provides care for the testator at her request, fail for uncertainty because the beneficiary is not named and can only be identified by future acts and extrinsic evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, J.
No. A will that describes a beneficiary with enough certainty that they can be identified through extrinsic evidence does not fail for uncertainty. The court reasoned that a testator does not need to explicitly name a devisee if they are described so as to be ascertained and identified. The will did not improperly reserve the power to name a beneficiary later; rather, it established a condition and described the person who would inherit. The subsequent letter to Ella Holsapple was not a testamentary document that appointed her, but rather extrinsic evidence that served to identify her as the person who met the conditions described in the will. The court applied the maxim 'id certum est quod ceritum reddi potest' (that is certain which can be made certain), holding that the will provided a clear standard by which the beneficiary could be determined.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between an invalid reservation of power to appoint a beneficiary and a valid description of a beneficiary whose identity is contingent on future events. The ruling affirms the use of extrinsic evidence not to alter or add to a will's terms, but to apply them and identify the person described therein. This strengthens the principle of honoring testamentary intent, even in cases of unconventional drafting, and provides legal support for conditional bequests where the beneficiary's identity is not fixed at the time of the will's execution but can be definitively ascertained later.
