Fleming v. Morrison
187 Mass. 120, 72 N.E. 499, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 1098 (1904)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will is invalid if the testator lacks the requisite testamentary intent (animus testandi) at the moment of execution. Extrinsic parol evidence is admissible to demonstrate that a formally executed will was intended as a sham and not as a genuine testamentary instrument.
Facts:
- A man named Butterfield created a document that appeared to be his last will and testament.
- In the presence of a witness, Goodridge, Butterfield signed the document and declared it to be his will.
- Goodridge then attested and subscribed to the instrument as a witness.
- Immediately after the signing and before Goodridge left, Butterfield told Goodridge that the instrument was a 'fake' will.
- Butterfield explained that the 'purpose' of the fake will was to induce a woman named Fleming to allow him to sleep with her.
Procedural Posture:
- The proponent of Butterfield's purported will submitted the instrument to the Probate Court.
- Contestants objected to the will, leading to a hearing.
- The Probate Court issued a decree admitting the will to probate.
- The contestants appealed the Probate Court's decree to the Supreme Judicial 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 formally executed and attested will lack the necessary testamentary intent (animus testandi) to be valid if the testator creates it as a sham for an ulterior purpose, as evidenced by his contemporaneous oral statements to a witness?
Opinions:
Majority - Loring, J.
Yes, a formally executed will lacks the necessary testamentary intent to be valid if it was created as a sham. The finding that Butterfield told his witness the will was a 'fake' made for a specific purpose is fatal to its validity. This statement reveals that Butterfield did not possess the genuine intent for the document to be his last will and testament at the moment of its execution. The court held it is competent to use parol evidence—in this case, Butterfield's oral statement—to contradict the solemn declarations contained within the will itself. The essential element of animus testandi must exist at the precise moment of signing and attestation before each required witness; if it does not, the statutory requirements for a valid will have not been met, regardless of the document's formal appearance.
Analysis:
This case establishes that testamentary intent (animus testandi) is a subjective state of mind that is absolutely essential for a will's validity, and it can be disproven by extrinsic evidence. The court's decision affirms that the formal requirements of execution, while important, are not sufficient on their own; they must be accompanied by the testator's genuine intent. This ruling sets a significant precedent by allowing parol evidence to overcome the formal solemnity of a will, which, as the court itself notes, carries the risk of opening valid wills to challenges based on potentially unreliable oral testimony. It prioritizes the actual intent of the testator over the objective, formal acts of execution.
