Opinion ID: 2118435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Equal Shares Under the Will.

Text: There is nothing about the circumstances which are reflected in the evidence to warrant a conclusion that George Zink intended to treat his four daughters equally in the disposition of his estate. There is, indeed, proof that he was on good terms with the petitioning daughter, but it does not follow that his testamentary plans necessarily contemplated her receiving an equal share of his assets. The language of the will clearly contradicts the appellant's claim for an equal share. It even provides a reason for not giving her an equal share; in paragraph 2 of the will the testator stated, after making a specific bequest of $6,000 to the petitioner: I have intentionally not made any larger provision for her for the reason that I have loaned to her at various times sums of money ... which she and her husband have failed and neglected to repay to me. In our opinion the will is clear and unambiguous and a construction which proposes that this testator intended equal shares for his four daughters would do violence to the language of the will. In Will of Peters (1937), 223 Wis. 411, 413, 270 N. W. 921, this court stated: While it is true that a will must be construed in accordance with the evident intention of the testator, when that  intention is clearly expressed in appropriate language the instrument admits of no construction. See also Estate of Gray (1953), 265 Wis. 217, 226, 61 N. W. (2d) 467. Even if the will results in inequality, the court cannot distort its construction to accomplish its own idea of what is equitable. Will of Richter (1934), 215 Wis. 108, 111, 254 N. W. 103.