Estate of Kehler
411 A.2d 748, 488 Pa. 165, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 491 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For Pennsylvania's anti-lapse statute to be overridden, a testator's will must show a 'contrary intent' with reasonable certainty. Ambiguous language, such as 'to the survivor or survivors of them,' is insufficient to establish such contrary intent, especially when contrasted with explicit lapse language used elsewhere in the will.
Facts:
- Emerson Kehler executed a will that, in Paragraph THIRD, bequeathed the residue of his estate to his four siblings: Ralph Kehler, Viola Welker, Ada Shartel, and Gertrude Krapf.
- The language of this bequest stated it was 'unto my brother... and my sisters... and to the survivor or survivors of them, equally, share and share alike...'
- Paragraphs FIRST and SECOND of the will left specific monetary gifts to two nephews, with explicit language stating that if either nephew predeceased the testator, the bequest would be 'null and void and of no effect.'
- One of the named siblings, Ralph Kehler, died before the testator, Emerson Kehler.
- Ralph Kehler was survived by his daughter, Ethel Chupp.
- The testator, Emerson Kehler, subsequently died in April 1975.
Procedural Posture:
- The Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County was tasked with interpreting Emerson Kehler's will.
- The Orphans' Court concluded that the language of the will demonstrated a 'contrary intent' to the anti-lapse statute.
- The court ruled that the share of the predeceased sibling, Ralph Kehler, should be distributed among his surviving siblings and not to his daughter, Ethel Chupp.
- Ethel Chupp, the appellant, appealed the Orphans' Court decree to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 the phrase 'and to the survivor or survivors of them' in a will's residuary clause, when other clauses in the same will explicitly provide for bequests to lapse, express a contrary intent with sufficient certainty to prevent the application of Pennsylvania's anti-lapse statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, J.
No. The phrase 'and to the survivor or survivors of them' does not demonstrate with reasonable certainty a contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption of the anti-lapse statute. The court reasoned that a 'contrary intent' must appear with reasonable certainty. Here, the testator's failure to use explicit lapse language in the residuary clause, while using such precise language for other bequests in the same will, created considerable doubt about his intent for the residuary gift to lapse. Because the contrary intent was not reasonably certain, the anti-lapse statute, 20 Pa.C.S. § 2514(9), applies, and the deceased brother's share passes to his surviving daughter.
Dissenting - Larsen, J.
Yes. The language 'to the survivor or survivors of them' clearly expresses the testator's intent to distribute the residue of his estate only to the named siblings who were still alive at the time of his death. The dissent argues that the different language used for the specific monetary bequests to individuals in other paragraphs is not surprising and does not negate the plain meaning of the survivorship language in the residuary clause. The testator's stated intent should be followed, and the anti-lapse statute should not apply.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'contrary intent' exception to Pennsylvania's anti-lapse statute, establishing a high standard for overriding the statute's protective function. It emphasizes that such intent must be shown with 'reasonable certainty' and cannot be inferred from ambiguous phrases like 'survivor or survivors,' particularly when the testator demonstrated knowledge of how to explicitly cause a gift to lapse elsewhere in the will. This ruling strengthens the presumption in favor of applying the anti-lapse statute, thereby protecting the issue of deceased beneficiaries unless the testator's intent to disinherit them is unmistakably clear.
