Estate of Gibbs v. Krause
111 N.W.2d 413, 14 Wis. 2d 490, 1961 Wisc. LEXIS 288 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a will's description of a beneficiary is unambiguous on its face but extrinsic evidence proves to the highest degree of certainty that the testator made a mistake in identifying details, such as a middle initial or address, a court may disregard the mistaken details to give effect to the testator's true intent.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Gibbs executed wills leaving a percentage of their estate to 'Robert J. Krause, now of 4708 North 46th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.'
- Robert J. Krause (appellant) matched this name and address exactly but had no significant relationship with the Gibbses, aside from a speculative memory of a single taxi ride with a woman who may have been Mrs. Gibbs.
- Robert Krause (respondent), was a longtime employee, superintendent, and close associate of Mr. Gibbs for nearly two decades.
- Mr. Gibbs frequently referred to respondent as 'Bob' and held him in high regard.
- A handwritten memorandum provided by Mr. Gibbs to his attorney for the preparation of the will listed the intended bequest as 'Bob, 1%,' in a section with other former employees.
- Earlier versions of the Gibbses' wills from 1953 contained a bequest simply to 'Robert Krause, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,' a description that could apply to either man.
- The specific middle initial 'J.' and the street address were added to the wills for the first time in 1957 and 1958 versions.
Procedural Posture:
- The wills of Mr. and Mrs. Gibbs were submitted for probate in the county court.
- Both Robert J. Krause (appellant) and Robert Krause (respondent) filed claims to be the legatee named in the wills.
- The county court admitted and considered extrinsic evidence to determine the testators' intent.
- The county court entered orders finding that the respondent, Robert Krause, was the intended beneficiary.
- Robert J. Krause, the individual whose name and address matched the will's description, appealed the county court's orders.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a court consider extrinsic evidence to determine a testator's intent and disregard specific identifying details in a will when the will's description of a beneficiary perfectly matches one individual, but substantial evidence suggests the testator intended to name a different individual?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairchild, J.
Yes. A court may consider extrinsic evidence and disregard mistaken identifying details in a will, even if the will is unambiguous on its face, if the evidence establishes to the highest degree of certainty that a mistake was made and reveals the testator's true intent. While the traditional rule forbids reforming a will or admitting extrinsic evidence where there is no ambiguity, the court carves out an exception for details of identification like middle initials and street addresses, which are highly susceptible to error. The court reasoned that rigidly adhering to the text in this case would frustrate the testators' clearly demonstrable intent to leave a bequest to their longtime associate, the respondent. The evidence, including Mr. Gibbs's handwritten notes referring to 'Bob,' overwhelmingly showed that the respondent was the intended beneficiary and the inclusion of the middle initial and address was a mistake. Therefore, these mistaken details should be disregarded to fulfill the testators' actual wishes.
Dissenting - Broadfoot and Brown, JJ.
The case notes a dissent from Justices Broadfoot and Brown but does not include the text of their opinion.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional 'plain meaning' rule in will construction, which generally prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence unless the will's language is ambiguous. By allowing a court to essentially correct a demonstrable mistake of fact in an otherwise unambiguous text, the court prioritizes the testator's actual intent over the literal words on the page. This precedent creates a 'mistake correction' exception, particularly for minor identifying details, potentially making it easier for courts to prevent unintended windfalls to strangers. However, it may also encourage more litigation by parties seeking to challenge clear testamentary language by claiming a mistake was made.
Unlock the full brief for Estate of Gibbs v. Krause