Opinion ID: 1923078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disposition of lapsed legacy.

Text: Since extrinsic evidence cannot be admitted in this case, we must look to the words of the will itself to determine the proper disposition of the lapsed portion of the residuary estate. Appellant contends that the ¼ - ¼ - ¼ - balance terminology of the residuary clause clearly demonstrates the testatrix intended at the time of the execution of the will that the three charities should share one fourth of the residue of the estate. Plainly, that was the effect of the word balance when all residuary legatees were in existence. However, appellant further asserts that the word balance should still be held to indicate one fourth, even after the death of one of the residuary legatees. We do not agree. In Estate of Rhodes (1955), 271 Wis. 342, 345, 73 N. W. 2d 602, this court stated: It is presumed that every word of a will is used advisedly and with its ordinary meaning. It is the duty of the court first to read the will giving ordinary meaning to its words and, if this produces a plain result, that result must prevail and be taken to express the testator's intent. This principle, under varying circumstances, has been repeatedly declared by this court. . . . In general, the ordinary meaning of the word balance is what is left; it is equivalent to remainder. Will of Doerfler (1937), 225 Wis. 418, 423, 273 N. W. 460. Applying this meaning to the will in question clearly indicates that the three charities should receive what is left, or one half, after the two surviving residuary legatees each receive one fourth of the residuary estate. Testatrix's failure to review her will, especially after the sale of her house and the death of one of the residuary legatees, results in the distribution of her estate in accordance with the intent she expressed at the time of execution of the will. The importance of a periodic review of an estate plan cannot be overstressed. The fact that the testatrix might have desired some other outcome cannot be considered by this court when interpreting the language of her will. As stated in 95 C. J. S., Wills, p. 795, sec. 599: Where the words when given their natural, ordinary, or popular meaning are plain and unambiguous, and show a clear intention on the part of the testator, they must be given that meaning notwithstanding their effect, and such meaning cannot be departed from for the purpose of giving effect to what it may be supposed was the intention of the testator, however beneficial that intention might have been. . . . We conclude that the order of the trial court construing the will must be affirmed. By the Court. Order affirmed.