Noll v. Garber
336 Ill. App. 3d 925, 784 N.E.2d 388 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will contains a devise "to [named individual] and his heirs, absolutely and in fee," but the named individual predeceases the testator, the absence of a specific lapse provision for that devise, contrasted with specific lapse provisions elsewhere in the will, creates an ambiguity requiring the consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine the testator's intent, thereby precluding dismissal on the pleadings.
Facts:
- Rosa E. McCoy owned certain tracts of real estate in Washburn, Illinois.
- McCoy executed a will that, in paragraphs Three and Four, bequeathed specific real estate and her residuary estate "to ARTHUR L. GARBER, and his heirs, absolutely and in fee."
- Paragraph Two of McCoy's will contained a lapse provision stating that if any of the legatees listed in that paragraph predeceased her, their legacy would lapse and be divided among the remaining living legatees.
- Arthur L. Garber, who was not a descendant of McCoy, predeceased McCoy in 1996.
- Rosa E. McCoy died testate on December 11, 1997.
- Stanley Noll is a legal heir of McCoy but is not named as a beneficiary in McCoy's will.
Procedural Posture:
- Stanley Noll filed a complaint for construction of the will in the Circuit Court of Peoria County (trial court), alleging that the word "heirs" in McCoy's will was a word of limitation and the devise to Garber should lapse.
- Barbara Garber, the executor of McCoy's and Garber's estates, and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss Noll's complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that McCoy intended a class gift to Garber and his heirs.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that McCoy's will, by not providing for the lapsing of the devise to Garber, showed a clear intent for the gift not to lapse.
- Stanley Noll appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Third 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 will creating a devise "to Arthur L. Garber and his heirs, absolutely and in fee" become ambiguous, preventing dismissal on the pleadings, when Garber predeceases the testator and the will includes a lapse provision for other specific bequests but not for this devise?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice McDade
Yes, a will creating a devise "to Arthur L. Garber and his heirs, absolutely and in fee" does become ambiguous, preventing dismissal on the pleadings, when Garber predeceases the testator and the will includes a lapse provision for other specific bequests but not for this devise. The court acknowledged that "heirs" in a will does not necessarily have a fixed meaning, though typically, in a devise to a person and his heirs, "heirs" is a word of limitation signifying a fee simple estate, not a class gift or substitution (citing Pool v. Pool and Winter v. Dibble). However, the critical ambiguity arises from the will's internal conflict: McCoy included a lapse provision for other beneficiaries but conspicuously omitted one for the devise to Garber. While the testator is presumed to know the law of intestacy and the effect of a lapsed devise, McCoy's failure to modify the will after Garber's death or include a lapse provision for his gift is "highly probative, although not dispositive," of her intent. This omission, combined with the general rule for "heirs," creates an unclear intention regarding whether McCoy intended to pass the property to Garber's heirs as a class gift when Garber predeceased her. Because McCoy's true intent cannot be determined solely from the will's language, a dismissal on the pleadings, which assumes no facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief, was improper. The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case, directing the trial court to consider extrinsic evidence of McCoy's intent to resolve the ambiguity.
Analysis:
This case highlights the interpretive challenges in will construction when a will contains seemingly contradictory provisions or omissions. It reinforces that while legal terms like "heirs" have a presumptive meaning (as a word of limitation signifying a fee simple), other clauses within the will can create ambiguity, necessitating further inquiry. The ruling prevents premature dismissal in cases where a testator's intent is genuinely unclear from the will's four corners, thereby requiring courts to consider extrinsic evidence. This serves as an important reminder for drafters of wills to be meticulously clear and consistent with all provisions, especially concerning lapse and survivorship, to avoid litigation and ensure the testator's true wishes are honored.
