Lichter v. Bletcher
266 Minn. 326, 123 N.W.2d 612, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 739 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bequest to specifically named beneficiaries who form a natural class may be construed as a class gift if the testator's dominant intent, as evidenced by the entire will and surrounding circumstances, was to treat the beneficiaries as a group rather than as individuals.
Facts:
- Mary Bletcher, who had no children, executed a will after her husband Arthur died.
- The will's second paragraph devised an undivided one-half of her property to her four siblings, Kate Bouquet, Sue Lovett, Frank Lichter, and Emil Lichter, by name, 'share and share alike.'
- The will's fourth paragraph devised the entire residue of her estate to her deceased husband's nephew, Robert Bletcher.
- After the will was executed, Bletcher's brother Emil died on November 9, 1957, and her sister Kate died on March 16, 1958.
- On May 28, 1958, with full knowledge that two of the sibling beneficiaries had died, Bletcher executed a second codicil to her will.
- This second codicil made a specific bequest to a church and concluded by explicitly stating she did 'hereby confirm and republish my last will and testament.'
- Bletcher died on October 7, 1958, survived by only two of the four siblings named in the second paragraph, Frank Lichter and Susan Lovett.
Procedural Posture:
- The probate court of Chippewa County construed the will of Mary Bletcher.
- The probate court held that the bequests to the two deceased siblings lapsed and fell into the residuary estate for Robert Bletcher.
- The surviving siblings, Frank Lichter and Susan Lovett (appellants), appealed the probate court's order to the district court.
- The district court affirmed the order of the probate court.
- The surviving siblings then appealed the judgment of the district court to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 bequest of one-half of an estate to four named siblings, 'share and share alike,' create a class gift, allowing the surviving siblings to inherit the entire share, when the testatrix republished the will with knowledge that two of the named siblings had predeceased her?
Opinions:
Majority - Otis, Justice.
Yes, the bequest creates a class gift. The function of the court is to determine the dominant purpose of the testatrix, and technical rules of construction should not be permitted to subvert her actual intention. While naming beneficiaries individually and using language like 'share and share alike' typically suggests individual gifts, these factors are not decisive. The court found compelling evidence of 'group-mindedness' in the will's overall structure, which divided the estate equally between her own family (her siblings) and her late husband's family. By republishing the will after two siblings had died without altering the provision, the testatrix manifested an intent for the surviving members of the sibling group to take the entire one-half share. It is unlikely she would have intended her husband's nephew to receive three-quarters of her estate while her own next of kin received only one-quarter.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates a judicial shift away from rigid adherence to technical rules of will construction, such as the presumption against class gifts when beneficiaries are named individually. The court prioritizes discerning the testator's overall intent by examining the entire testamentary scheme and extrinsic circumstances. The case establishes a strong precedent for finding a class gift where beneficiaries form a 'natural class' (e.g., siblings) and the will demonstrates a clear plan of 'group-minded' distribution, thereby influencing how future courts will balance formalistic rules against evidence of a testator's broader purpose.
