Fine Arts Museums v. First Nat.
1994 WL 90366, 633 So. 2d 1179 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When applying the words of a will to the intended beneficiary results in an ambiguity because the named entity no longer exists, a latent ambiguity arises, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine the testator's intent.
Facts:
- Charles Norton Adams (Testator) executed a will on September 19, 1991.
- The will devised one-sixth of the proceeds from the sale of his real property to the 'De Young Museum Art School, San Francisco, California,' for a scholarship fund.
- The corporate entity named 'De Young Museum Art School' had been dissolved on March 29, 1988, over three years before Adams executed his will.
- At the time the will was executed, the De Young Museum and its art school programs were operated by The Fine Arts Museums Foundation (the Foundation).
- The will contained a residuary clause naming Olean General Hospital as the beneficiary of any lapsed gifts.
Procedural Posture:
- First National in Palm Beach, the estate's personal representative, filed a petition for construction of the will in the probate division of the circuit court (trial court).
- Olean General Hospital, the residuary beneficiary, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the gift had lapsed.
- The Fine Arts Museums Foundation filed a memorandum of law and an affidavit in opposition to the motion.
- The probate court granted Olean General Hospital's motion for summary judgment, finding the will was not ambiguous and the gift failed.
- The Fine Arts Museums Foundation (appellant) appealed the summary judgment order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District (intermediate appellate court).
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 devise to a named entity that was dissolved before the will's execution, but whose functions are carried on by a successor entity, create a latent ambiguity that makes summary judgment improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A devise to a named entity that was dissolved before the will's execution creates a latent ambiguity, making summary judgment improper. A latent ambiguity arises not from the face of the will itself, but when applying the will's terms to the external facts. Here, the attempt to give the bequest to the 'De Young Museum Art School' reveals that the corporate entity no longer exists, creating an ambiguity as to the testator's true intent. The paramount principle in will construction is the testator's intent. Because the face of the will and the affidavit from the testator's stepson show a clear intent to benefit the art school at the De Young Museum, even if mislabeled, a question of fact exists. Therefore, extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine intent, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the testator's intent is the primary guide in will construction, even in the face of technical inaccuracies. It solidifies the doctrine of latent ambiguity, distinguishing it from patent (obvious) ambiguity, and clarifies that courts should look beyond the four corners of the will when external facts create uncertainty. This precedent makes it more difficult for a gift to fail due to a misnomer or corporate restructuring, provided there is extrinsic evidence to clarify the testator's probable intent. Future cases involving bequests to defunct or reorganized entities will rely on this ruling to justify admitting evidence to save the gift rather than allowing it to lapse.
