Mahoney v. Grainger
Not Provided (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the language of a will is plain and unambiguous, extrinsic evidence of the testator's intent is inadmissible to alter or reform the will's terms, even if the language used by the drafter does not conform to the testator's oral instructions.
Facts:
- Helen A. Sullivan, the testatrix, executed a will leaving the residue of her estate to her 'heirs at law, living at the time of my decease, absolutely; to be divided among them equally, share and share alike.'
- At the time of her death, Sullivan's sole legal heir at law was her maternal aunt, Frances Hawkes Greene.
- About ten days before her death, Sullivan instructed the attorney drafting her will that she wanted the residue of her property to be shared equally among her 'twenty-five first cousins.'
- The attorney drafted the will using the term 'heirs at law' instead of 'cousins,' read the drafted will to Sullivan, and she then executed it.
- Sullivan maintained cordial and friendly relations with both her sole heir (her aunt) and several of her first cousins.
- The will also provided separate general legacies in considerable sums to two of her first cousins.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen A. Sullivan's will was duly proved and allowed in a probate court on October 8, 1931.
- A group of Sullivan's first cousins filed a petition for distribution in the probate court, seeking the residue of the estate.
- The probate court judge denied the cousins' petition.
- The first cousins, as appellants, appealed the probate court's decree to the state's highest 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 court permit the use of extrinsic evidence, such as a testator's instructions to her attorney, to alter the meaning of the unambiguous term 'heirs at law' in a duly executed will?
Opinions:
Majority - Rugg, C.J.
No, a court will not permit the use of extrinsic evidence to alter the meaning of unambiguous terms in a will. The phrase 'heirs at law' has a settled legal meaning, and where the language of a will is clear in its application to the facts, it must be accepted as the final expression of the testator's intent. The court reasoned that the Statute of Wills requires that a person's testamentary intent be expressed in the executed written document, and to allow oral testimony to alter clear terms would undermine this statutory requirement. The fact that the will was not in conformity with the instructions given to the draftsman, or that the draftsman made a mistake, does not authorize a court to reform or rewrite the will. The court cited precedent establishing that the plural word 'heirs' and the phrase 'share and share alike' do not create ambiguity and do not prevent a single individual from taking the entire gift if that individual is the sole heir.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the 'plain meaning rule' in the context of will interpretation, emphasizing the finality and integrity of a duly executed testamentary instrument. It establishes a rigid barrier against the admission of extrinsic evidence to correct alleged drafting errors when the will's language is legally unambiguous. The case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of precise legal drafting, as courts will not 'fix' a lawyer's mistake if it results in a will with clear, albeit unintended, consequences. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for parties to challenge a will based on a discrepancy between the testator's verbal instructions and the final written text.
Unlock the full brief for Mahoney v. Grainger