Title: In Re Will of Cobb

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

156 S.E.2d 285 (1967) 271 N.C. 307 In the Matter of the WILL of Bruce COBB, Deceased. No. 192. Supreme Court of North Carolina. August 25, 1967. *287 R. L. Coburn, Williamston, for caveator appellants. Gillam & Gillam, Windsor, for propounder appellees. SHARP, Justice. The words next of kin have a well defined legal significance. Unless the terms of the instrument show a contrary intent, in the construction of deeds and wills next of kin means nearest of kinthe nearest blood relations of the person designated. Without more, the term does not permit a representation. McCain v. Womble, 265 N.C. 640, 144 S.E.2d 857; Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. v. Bass, 265 N.C. 218, 231, 143 S.E.2d 689, 698. Testator's brother, propounder A. J. Cobb, *288 was his nearest blood kin at the time of his death. G.S. § 29-5; G.S. § 104A-1. Therefore, if Item 3 of the will stands, he takes to the exclusion of the niece and nephews since the instrument itself contains no suggestion that the words were used in other than the technical sense. This case challenges the probate of Item 3 as a part of the will of Bruce Cobb; it involves no question of construction. The proffered deeds, however, are irrelevant to either inquiry. A will "must be interpreted from the language used by (testator) and not according to what others might think he meant or what he might have thought the words `next of kin' meant * * *." McCain v. Womble, supra, 265 N.C. at 644, 144 S.E.2d at 859-860. By the same token, the joint execution of the deeds by caveators and propounders after the death of Bruce Cobb sheds no light on whether Item 3 was the will of testator. The excluded testimony of W. L. Cooke, however, does cast light on that question. If accepted by a jury, it would establish that Item 3 was not written in conformity with the instructions which testator gave his draftsman. The question presented, therefore, is this: Where a will has been read and duly executed by a mentally competent testator who has been subjected to no fraud or undue influence, can probate be revoked because the attorney who drafted it erroneously used language which produced a disposition of his property different from that intended by the testator and different from the one which the draftsman advised him would result? The answer to this question is NO, and the reasons for it have been well stated in In re Gluckman's Will, 87 N.J.Eq. 638, 101 A. 295, L.R.A. 1918D, 742: In a case involving facts substantially identical to those with which we deal here, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reached the same conclusion as did the New Jersey court. In Mahoney v. Grainger, 283 Mass. 189, 186 N.E. 86, the will had been read to the testatrix by the attorney who drafted it before she executed it. Its residuary clause directed that the balance of her estate be equally divided among her "heirs at law" living at the time of her death. Testatrix' instructions to her attorney had been to let her 25 first cousins "share it equally." At the time of her death, testatrix' closest relative was a maternal aunt, whounder Massachusetts *289 lawwas her heir at law. In holding that testimony as to the instructions which testator gave the draftsman was incompetent to prove her testamentary intention, Rugg, C. J., said: In Harrison et al. v. Morton & Brown, ex'rs, etc., 32 Tenn. (2 Swan) 461, caveators offered evidence that testator had instructed the draftsman of his will to provide for his grandchildren, who were the children of his two deceased daughters, equally with his own children. In holding that this evidence was properly excluded, the court said: In In re Estate of Burt, 122 Vt. 260, 169 A.2d 32, 90 A.L.R.2d 916, testator instructed his attorney to prepare a will which would disinherit his brother W and give his entire estate to B. In writing the will, the attorneyafter devising the estate to Bprovided that if B should predecease the testator, his estate should be divided according to the Vermont laws of descent. B survived testator and W contested the will upon several grounds, one being that it was not drawn in accordance with the instructions of the testator. The court, conceding that there was a variance between the legal effect and the possible results of the language used by the draftsman, and pointing out that the mistaken provisions never went into effect nor controlled the provisions of the will, said: Mistakes of draftsmen have caused much litigation and varied attempts to correct them by deletion, reformation, and construction. See Yates v. Cole, 54 N.C. 110; Hoover v. Roberts, 144 Kan. 58, 58 P.2d 83; In re Mullin's Estate, 128 So. 2d 617 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla., 1961). Different factual *290 situations have produced varying, and sometimes conflicting results. In consequence, annotators have preferred to discuss the results reached in cases involving different types of mistakes rather than to attempt the formulation of general rules. See Annotations, Effect of mistake of draftsman (other than testator) in drawing will, 90 A.L.R.2d 924 (1963) and 16 B.R.C. 1006 (1931), where a variety of cases are collected. In 90 A.L.R.2d at p. 939, however, this statement appears with reference to the factual situation here presented: Accord, Annot., 16 B.R.C. 1006, 1011 (1931); 57 Am.Jur., Wills §§ 16, 375, 376, 875 (1948); Thompson on Wills § 136 (3d Ed., 1947); 1 Jarman on Wills 484-490 (1910). The above rule is also recognized in 1 Page, Wills § 13.6 (Bowe-Parker Rev., 1960): We deem the majority rule to be the only safe rule. In this case, we suggest no doubt whatever as to the truth of the proffered testimony of the draftsman, who has confessed error. More is at stake, however, than caveators' loss of the share which they have good reason to believe testator intended them to have in his estate. Nevertheless, in the absence of fraud, duress, mistake in the identity of the instrument executed, or lack of mental capacity, public policy requires that a testator's will remain inviolate. It follows, therefore, that the evidence in question was properly excluded and the peremptory instruction correct. The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.