Opinion ID: 1187773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Read Lands Devolution As A Question of Testator's Intent

Text: Simplicity and directness would call this court to give effect to the bequest as stated and afford distribution of the asset interest remaining in decedent at the date of her death in the properties inherited from her relatives by distribution of the balance remaining due on the installment contract to those designated by the will. Consequently, the law would do what decedent directed by will to be done. Shure v. Dahl, N.D., 80 N.W.2d 825, 62 A.L.R.2d 953 (1957); Washington Escrow Co. v. McKinnon, 40 Wash.2d 432, 243 P.2d 1044 (1952); Bates v. Fuller, Tex. App., 663 S.W.2d 512 (1983); Chandler v. Owen, 233 Ga. 25, 209 S.E.2d 618 (1974). The decision of this court is determined by the application of the explicit provisions of § 2-6-109(b)(i): Any balance of the purchase price together with any security interest owing from a purchaser to the testator at death by reason of sale of the property   . The question finally remaining is whether anything in the will or the record would demonstrate an intent under the purview of § 2-6-105: The intention of a testator as expressed in his will controls the legal effect of his dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in the succeeding sections of this article apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will, so that § 2-6-109 would not apply. Obviously, the latter section explicitly covers the provision as a balance of the purchase price remaining unpaid at date of death of testator. Considering the terminology of the will as any interest and title, the statutory provision seems explicitly to effectuate the intent of testator, and consequently we determine that the application of § 2-6-109 controls and the contract balance remaining for the Read ranch lands should be distributed in accord with the specific bequest provisions of Article X of the will. Affirmed as to Case No. 85-106 (lapse), reversed as to Case No. 85-105 (ademption), and remanded for entry of an order in favor of appellant in Case No. 85-105.