Opinion ID: 874304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Court Err in Interpreting Parents' Wills as Including a Testamentary Appointment of Heisses as Coguardians?

Text: Conti appeals the court's action in appointing Heisses as coguardians. Parents' wills were both handwritten, but Mother's will was written in Spanish and then translated into English for these proceedings. It is undisputed that Parents' wills are valid. It is also undisputed that both wills nominated Conti as guardian of Children. The issue is whether the wills also nominated Heisses as coguardians for one month each year. The relevant portions of Parents' wills are as follows: Karl's will: In such case that we (Marisa Bauducco and Karl Heiss) should die, the surviving children ([Jane] and [John]) should be left in the care of (in this order) Violeta E. Conti (mother of Marisa Bauducco) [Marisa's sister], or [Marisa's brother]. If such possibility exists it would be our wish that they be able to raise them in our (Idaho) house. One month out of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (parents of Karl Heiss) to raise the children where they see fit to do so..... Marisa's will: In case that we (Karl Heiss and Marisa Bauducco) would die; the surviving children ([Jane] and [John]) will stay under the guardianship of Violeta E. Conti (Mother of Marisa) [Marisa's sister] or [Marisa's brother]. If at all possible we would prefer that the children and the guardians live and grow up in our house in Idaho. One month of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (Karl Heiss's parents), the place of the visit shall be decided by them..... The court determined that Parents intended to execute identical wills with respect to the testamentary guardianship provisions, and the parties agree. `[I]n construing the provisions of a will to ascertain the meaning of a testator, the cardinal rule of construction is to ascertain the testator's intent; and ... [t]his intent is to be ascertained from a full view of everything within the four corners of the instrument.' Wilkins v. Wilkins, 137 Idaho 315, 319, 48 P.3d 644, 648 (2002). In construing the wills, the court began with the observation that Parents wanted Children to maintain contact with Heisses. Father's will stated, One month out of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (parents of Karl Heiss) to raise the children where they see fit to do so, and Mother's will stated, One month of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (Karl Heiss's parents), the place of the visit shall be decided by them. The court then reasoned, however, that the legally proper way to insure that the Heisses would have that visitation would have been to make them coguardians. The court wrote as follows: The legally proper method for accomplishing that goal, in this court's view, would have been to explicitly designate Heiss as limited co-guardians of the children, with Conti assuming the duties and powers of primary guardian during the remaining eleven months of the year. This approach is, in the court's opinion, preferable to interpreting said provisions as conferring grandparents' visitation rights which could be legally inadequate to allow Heiss to authorize medical treatment for the children in the U.S. in Conti's absence during their month of custody, or make international travel arrangements for the children, along with a host of other potential impediments. The court then concluded that [h]ad these legal nuances been properly explained to Karl and Marisa, the court believes that they would have specified Heiss as limited coguardians in their wills. The court found additional support for its conclusion from the provision in Father's will stating, One month out of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (parents of Karl Heiss) to raise the children where they see fit to do so. (Emphasis added.) The court concluded that Father likely would not equate raise with visit. The court did not address the comparable provision in Mother's will stating, One month of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (Karl Heiss's parents), the place of the visit shall be decided by them. (Emphasis added.) The court erred in its interpretation of the wills. First, the court must interpret the wills as written, not in a manner that would have, in the court's opinion, better accomplished one of Parents' objectives. Although appointing Heisses as limited coguardians for one month a year would better insure that they had that time with Children, there are also problems that can arise with coguardianships when there are disagreements between the coguardians. The issue is what Parents intended from the wording of their wills, not what, in the court's view, would have been a better manner of accomplishing the goal of enabling Heisses to maintain contact with Children. The court's decision was also based upon its belief that designating Heisses as coguardians was preferable to interpreting [the wills] as conferring `grandparents' visitation rights which could be legally inadequate to allow Heiss to authorize medical treatment for the children in the U.S. in Conti's absence during their month of custody, or make international travel arrangements for the children, along with a host of other potential impediments. That concern does not empower the court to redraft the wills. In addition, that concern ignores the fact that when Children are visiting Heisses in the United States, Conti can delegate to Heisses the power to consent to medical care for Children, make international travel arrangements, and do whatever else is necessary. Idaho Code § 15-5-104 provides: [A] guardian of a minor ... by a properly executed power of attorney, may delegate to another person, for a period not exceeding six (6) months ... any of the ... guardian's powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor or ward including, but not limited to, powers for medical care and educational care of the minor or ward, except the parent's or guardian's power to consent to marriage or adoption of a minor or ward. There is no contention that a limited power of attorney given by Conti to authorize Heisses to consent to medical care, arrange for international travel, or do other necessary acts would not be valid in California. Second, the court interpreted the wills based upon its speculation as to how Parents would have drafted their wills had these legal nuances been properly explained to [them]. The court's speculation as to what Parents would have done had they consulted with an attorney is not a proper factor in interpreting their wills. Finally, the court found that Karl's use of the word raise was controlling without recognizing that Marisa used the word visit. When the corresponding provisions in both wills are read together and in context, it is clear that Parents were simply indicating their preference that Heisses be able to choose where they exercise visitation with Children. Immediately preceding these provisions, both Parents expressed the desire that Children and their guardians live at Parents' house in Idaho, if possible. Parents obviously knew that Conti lived in Argentina and that it was unlikely she would move to Idaho upon being appointed Children's guardian, assuming she could even obtain legal residency. Karl then wrote, One month out of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (parents of Karl Heiss) to raise the children where they see fit to do so. (Emphasis added.) Mother wrote, One month of the year should be reserved for Anna and Fred Heiss (Karl Heiss's parents), the place of the visit shall be decided by them. (Emphasis added.) These provisions were addressing where Heisses could exercise visitation. They should be able to exercise their month-long visitation where they desired, such as their home in Malibu, rather than in Argentina. [2] These provisions cannot reasonably be construed as appointing Heisses as coguardians. It is clear that Parents did not appoint Heisses as coguardians. We therefore reverse the order appointing them as coguardians.