 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Estate of Seader9/23/2003
of an intention that these three be treated equally. Finally, in the specific bequest clause, Julie Schroeder is given a Thomas Organ but the decedent's two biological sons are given nothing additional. If this adds anything to the testator's intentions about Julie Schroeder, it is that she should be given preference over the biological sons -- certainly not treated worse.
The specific provisions of the will upon which this argument is based read as follows:
SECOND: (SPECIFIC BEQUESTS) I make the following specific bequests: (1) my Thomas Organ to Julie Schroeder; (2) the sum of $500.00 to Ronald Bathrick. Also, (3) my coins in the safe deposit box to be divided equally among Charles Lee Seader, Neil J. Seader and Julie L. Schroeder, share and share alike.
THIRD: All the rest, residue and remainder of my property, of every nature and description, real, personal or mixed, wheresoever the same may be situate, and whether acquired before or after the execution of this Last Will and Testament, and including is such rest, residue and remainder, any property over which at the time of my death I shall have the power of testamentary disposition, is directed to be sold and I give, bequeath and devise the proceeds to divided to:
Neil J. Seader Charles Lee Seader Julie L. Schroeder [Address] [Address] [Address]
We agree with the district court that these provisions are clear and unambiguous and that they simply do not contain any hint of an intention on Neil's behalf that the bequest and devise to Julie should be exempt from the anti-lapse statute. The will does not even refer to Julie as "my child" or to Julie, Neil J., and Charles as "my children." There is nothing within the language of the will from which we can infer that Julie was intended to be considered a "lineal descendent." It must be remembered that we cannot create an ambiguity within the will by application of the knowledge that Neil did not adopt Julie or by the assertions of others that he had allegedly previously intended to adopt her.
Even if we were to accept the contention that, at the time of his marriage to Julie's mother, Neil agreed to adopt Julie, that adds nothing to our assessment of Neil's testamentary intent. An adopted child, like a natural child, could have been left out of the will altogether. We would have to speculate to conclude that, because Neil included Julie in his will, he meant for the gifts to her to pass to her children if she predeceased him. Such speculation is simply not justified; the terms of the will and the statutory provisions are equally unambiguous.
CONCLUSION
We decline to apply the doctrine of equitable adoption to affect the distribution of a testate estate. Equity should not be available to countermand clear legislative mandates. Adoption and probate are both statutory procedures, with formalities designed to ensure certainty. Where neither the applicable statutes nor the last will and testament are ambiguous, neither legislative intent nor testamentary intent depend upon resort to equity. Furthermore, there is no language within the unambiguous Last Will and Testament of Neil Adam Seader from which we can discern an intent that the provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. ยงยง 2-6-106 and 2-6-107 not apply to the testamentary gift to Julie L. Schroeder.
The district court's Order Granting Summary Judgment and Order Approving Accounting, and Decree of Distribution are affirmed.
GOLDEN, J., dissenting, with whom HILL, C.J., joins.
Because I believe there is room for equity under the unique facts of this case, I dissent. With regards to the first issue, the application of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Wyoming Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|