Erickson v. Erickson
716 A.2d 92, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 318, 246 Conn. 359 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Extrinsic evidence of a scrivener's error is admissible to establish a testator's intent that their will should remain valid notwithstanding a subsequent marriage. If the error and its effect on the testator's intent are established by clear and convincing evidence, it can satisfy a statutory requirement that the will 'made provision for such contingency,' thereby preventing automatic revocation.
Facts:
- Ronald K. Erickson was unmarried and had three daughters.
- He was engaged to marry Dorothy A. Mehring, who had four children of her own.
- On September 1, 1988, Ronald K. Erickson executed a will.
- The will left his entire residuary estate to "DOROTHY A. MEHRING," appointed her as executrix, and named her as guardian of his minor children.
- The will did not contain any explicit language mentioning his impending marriage or stating that it was made in contemplation of marriage.
- Two days later, on September 3, 1988, Ronald K. Erickson married Dorothy A. Mehring.
- Ronald K. Erickson died on February 22, 1996, survived by his wife Dorothy and his daughters.
Procedural Posture:
- The Probate Court for the district of Madison admitted the will of Ronald K. Erickson to probate.
- Alicia Erickson (plaintiff), the decedent's daughter, appealed the Probate Court's decree to the trial court.
- The plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude extrinsic evidence of the decedent's intent, which the trial court granted in large part.
- Following a de novo proceeding, the trial court found that the will provided for the contingency of marriage and rendered judgment affirming the Probate Court's decree.
- Alicia Erickson (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The defendant, Dorothy Erickson (appellee), filed a cross appeal challenging the trial court's exclusion of the extrinsic evidence.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal from the Appellate Court on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is extrinsic evidence of a scrivener’s error admissible to show a testator’s intent that their will should not be automatically revoked by a subsequent marriage under a statute that revokes such wills unless they provide for the 'contingency' of marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Borden, J.
Yes, extrinsic evidence of a scrivener's error is admissible to show a testator's intent that a will not be automatically revoked by a subsequent marriage. The court overrules its precedent in Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon Hospital, which had barred such evidence. The court adopts the reasoning from the dissent in that case, concluding there is no discernible policy difference between admitting extrinsic evidence to prove fraud, duress, or undue influence, and admitting it to prove an innocent scrivener's error that distorts the testator's intent. While the risk of subverting a testator's intent is serious, the risk of blindly enforcing a disposition that misstates the testator's true intent is a greater concern. To guard against fraudulent claims, the proponent of the will must establish the scrivener's error and its effect on the testator's intent by clear and convincing evidence.
Concurring - Berdon, J.
Yes, extrinsic evidence should be admissible. Although expressing some reservation with classifying the lawyer's mistake as a 'scrivener's error,' the opinion fully concurs with the majority's decision to overrule Connecticut Junior Republic v. Sharon Hospital. It endorses the reasoning of Justice Peters' dissent in that case, emphasizing that the common law must evolve to serve modern needs and that requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence is an adequate safeguard.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant doctrinal shift in Connecticut probate law, moving away from a rigid, four-corners approach to will interpretation toward a more modern, intent-focused analysis in cases of alleged drafting error. By overruling Connecticut Junior Republic, the court created a new equitable exception to the statutory rule of will revocation by marriage, prioritizing the testator's actual intent over strict formal requirements. This change provides a remedy for beneficiaries who would otherwise be disinherited due to a lawyer's mistake, though it also opens the door to more litigation regarding a testator's intent. The court mitigates this risk by imposing a high 'clear and convincing' evidentiary standard on those seeking to admit such extrinsic evidence.
