In re the Estate of Patrick
2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 189, 728 N.Y.S.2d 354, 188 Misc. 2d 295 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will is clear, definite, and unambiguous on its face, courts cannot consider extrinsic evidence, such as a contemporaneous affidavit, to introduce or correct an alleged mistake or to reform the will, even if the testator's underlying assumption for a bequest was incorrect.
Facts:
- Charles T. Patrick died on November 18, 2000.
- On June 20, 1990, Charles T. Patrick executed a will.
- The will left Charles T. Patrick's residuary estate, consisting solely of his residence, to his daughter, Lisa Patrick.
- On the same day, Charles T. Patrick signed an affidavit stating that he was leaving his entire estate to Lisa Patrick because she was the only one of his four children who did not own her own home.
- At the time of the will's execution, two other children of Charles T. Patrick, David W. Patrick and Joyce M. Patrick, also did not own their homes.
- The will itself contained no conditions or qualifications regarding his children's home ownership or the residuary bequest to Lisa Patrick.
- Charles T. Patrick made no attempt to change the terms of his will during the 10 years between its execution and his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Patrick, the decedent’s daughter and nominated executrix, petitioned the Surrogate's Court to probate an instrument dated June 20, 1990, as the decedent's last will and testament.
- Debbie J. Lizzo, David W. Patrick, and Joyce M. Patrick, other children of the decedent, interposed objections to the probate, alleging that the will was not reflective of the decedent’s true intentions due to a mistaken belief about his children's home ownership.
- The Surrogate's Court tried the contested probate proceeding without a jury.
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 court have the authority to reform a clear and unambiguous will based on an alleged mistake expressed in a contemporaneous affidavit that was not incorporated by reference into the will?
Opinions:
Majority - Peter N. Wells, S.
No, a court does not have the authority to reform a clear and unambiguous will based on an alleged mistake expressed in a contemporaneous affidavit not incorporated by reference into the will. The court reasoned that when a testator's purpose is reasonably clear from reading the words of the will in their natural and common sense, courts do not have the right to annul or pervert that purpose, even if a consequence was not thought of or intended. The remedy of reformation of a testamentary instrument is to be applied sparingly, if at all. For an alleged mistake to be considered, it must be evident on the face of the document itself. Here, the words used in the will were clear, definite, and unambiguous, and the residuary bequest to Lisa Patrick was unconditional. The alleged mistake derived from an affidavit, which was not referred to in the will and therefore constituted extraneous matter. To allow such extrinsic evidence to alter the will would substantially change the decedent’s express testamentary scheme and result in a deviation from his clearly stated wishes, effectively creating a new will. The will was duly executed and remained unchanged for 10 years prior to the decedent's death, implying the testator's continued awareness and intent.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental principle of testamentary freedom and the strict construction of unambiguous wills. It highlights the strong legal presumption against judicial modification of a will when its language is clear, emphasizing that courts will generally not look beyond the 'four corners' of the document to infer a testator's intent or correct perceived mistakes unless an ambiguity is present on the will's face. The ruling underscores the importance of precise drafting in estate planning, requiring testators to explicitly state any conditions, motivations, or contingencies within the will itself to ensure their wishes are legally binding and avoid disputes based on extrinsic evidence of mistaken beliefs.
