Opinion ID: 1725769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: meaning of the word issue

Text: The primary duty of any court faced with the task of resolving a disputed testamentary disposition is to effectuate as nearly as possible the intention of the testator. Where there is no ambiguity, that intention is to be gleaned from the four corners of the instrument, In re Scheyer's Estate, 336 Mich 645, 648-649; 59 NW2d 33 (1953); Wheeler v Wood, 104 Mich 414; 62 NW 577 (1895), and the court has merely to interpret and enforce the language employed. If the intention of the testator cannot be gleaned solely by reference to the instrument, in other words, if the document evidences a patent or latent ambiguity, [6] there are two external sources through consideration of which a court may establish the intent of the testator: (1) surrounding circumstances and (2) rules of construction. We find no ambiguity to exist in this case; therefore we resolve this dispute by interpretation of the language within the four corners of the instrument. The dispute in this case arises because paragraph 30, dealing with the distribution of trust corpus on dissolution, and paragraph 27, dealing with distribution of trust income, employ different language. Paragraph 30, as set forth in full in footnote 4, supra, establishes that the trust shall be dissolved upon the death of the last survivor among the testator's wife and children. There is provision for the setting aside of sufficient amounts of principal to pay income to any possible surviving designated life annuitants, but beyond this, distribution of corpus is to be made to all grandchildren of the testator then living, or in the event of no living grandchildren, to the testator's heirs at law. In contrast to this reference to grandchildren, paragraph 27, also set forth in full in footnote 4, incorporates reference to the payment of trust income to designated annuitants during their lives, authorizes payment of 30 percent of the net income from the trust to the testator's widow, and provides that the remainder of the net income from the trust (including, upon the death of the wife, her 30 percent life estate in the net income) be divided in equal shares for payment to Butterfield's children, and in the case of the death of a child who is survived by issue, then the issue are to receive and divide equally the parent's share until termination of the trust. [7] As is discussed below, the word issue is defined in Michigan to mean all lineal descendants. As a consequence, there would be no question here but for the fact that the term issue is used in paragraph 27 to designate income distributees of the trust and the term grandchildren is used in paragraph 30 to designate corpus distributees on dissolution of the same trust. [8] Appellees assert that both terms are thereby rendered ambiguous and must be construed as referring to the same class of people, and that that class is limited to grandchildren, excluding great-grandchildren. We do not agree with appellees that the term issue is rendered ambiguous by the use of the term grandchildren in paragraph 30, but find that issue must be given its clear meaning and by law refer to all lineal descendants. Although each case must be determined under its individual circumstances, in general, the testamentary disposition of trust corpus and trust income in different manners cannot logically compel a finding of ambiguity. See In re Hicks Estate, 345 Mich 448, 452-453; 75 NW2d 819 (1956). If such a testamentary scheme were to be considered inherently ambiguous, we would greatly increase the necessity of judicial construction of wills and unreasonably constrain the use of language presently considered clear and unambiguous; the net result would doubtless be interference with the long-standing and jealously guarded power to devise and bequeath. See MCL 702.1; MSA 27.3178(71) and MCL 702.4; MSA 27.3178(74). Clearly, then, a given testator may intend different recipients of income and corpus, In re Hicks Estate, supra . Further, it is beyond dispute that in the instant case, at least as to certain income beneficiaries, this is exactly what the testator intended. The testator specifically designated certain life annuitants to take income under the trust while these same individuals were not to take corpus upon dissolution, despite the fact that they might survive the life of the trust. [9] In the instant case, because there is no ambiguity created under such a scheme, we must interpret each word of the will in accordance with its clear meaning. The authorities are overwhelming that when there is no patent or latent ambiguity in the provisions of a will, the intention to be ascribed to the testator is that intention demonstrated in the will's plain language. In re Willey Estate, 9 Mich App 245, 249; 156 NW2d 631 (1967). In Michigan the meaning of issue is set forth in the statutes: The word `issue' as applied to the descent of estates means all lawful lineal descendants of the ancestor. MCL 8.3h; MSA 2.212(8). This statutory definition codifies both the general and technical meaning of issue in Michigan; it was in effect in 1933 when the will was drafted and remains in effect today. Further, although external rules of construction are not necessary when interpreting the language of a will because the testator's intention can be gleaned from the four corners of the document, there are two qualifications or exceptions to this principal rule. Atkinson, Law of Wills (2d ed), ch 15, § 146, p 811. Even when we can arrive at the testator's intent by limiting our analysis to the document itself, these two qualifications apply: [I]f the testator employed a draftsman skilled in the use of technical words these must be given their technical meaning. It is practically necessary that the testator's intent should be identified with that of the agent whom he employed to express the intent. Furthermore, to the extent that either a statute or established rule of decision attributes a certain meaning to particular words, that meaning must be accepted. (Authority omitted.) Atkinson, supra. These qualifications and the facts that the will was drafted by a lawyer and the statute defines issue to comprise all lineal descendants, as well as the clear general meaning of the word issue in this state, lead us to the necessary conclusion that the great-grandchildren, as issue, are entitled to their parent's share of the income under paragraph 27 of the will.