Opinion ID: 1969713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Van S. Lung's Will

Text: In construing the legacy in Article Twenty-Four of Lung's will, the trial judge adhered closely to these principles of classification. Most significantly, the trial judge recognized and applied the presumption that Lung did not intend to create a specific legacy. The rationale of this presumption is perfectly suited to this case. The presumption against specific legacies exists because such bequests are lost if the designated asset is not part of the estate when the testator dies. Here, if the legacy were found specific, eight individuals would lose over $450,000 because they would be forced to prorate less than $50,000 rather than $500,000. We see no error in applying a presumption to a case that exquisitely serves the presumption's purpose. Furthermore, an intention to create a specific legacy was not shown with clarity. The trial judge instead found a clear intention to create a demonstrative legacy. In reaching this conclusion, the trial judge looked exclusively to the language of the will. Considering the will as a whole, Lung held bequests to particular individuals in higher regard than the residuary estate. For example, in Article Four, Lung named the residuary estate as the source of payment for all taxes. He explicitly stated that no charges were to be assessed against the beneficiaries, even in the event of a deficiency. This provision supports an intention not to preserve the residuary estate at the expense of bequests to individuals. Further, in Article Twenty-Four itself, Lung reveals his expectation that the eight enumerated individuals would receive the full amount of the $500,000 bequest. This follows from his naming the Foundation as remainderman. Lung would not have provided for any remainderman had he not intended for complete payment of the individual bequests. We are unpersuaded that clear proof of intent to create a specific legacy is supplied simply from the presence of my preceding stock in the Article Twenty-Four bequest. The trial judge concluded that Lung intended to create a demonstrative rather than specific legacy in Article Twenty Four. Given the presumption against specific legacies and the language in Lung's will indicating Lung's intent to create a demonstrative legacy, we conclude that the trial judge did not err as a matter of law and further that there were no genuine issues of material facts. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. So ordered. RUIZ, Associate Judge, concurring: Where an interpretation of a will is based solely on the language of the will, we review the trial court's determination de novo. In re Estate of Wiley, 331 A.2d 343, 345 (D.C. 1975). I agree that the contested provision in Lung's will should be construed as a demonstrative and not a specific legacy. I reach that conclusion, however, not because I interpret the will as being clear in that respect, as the trial court did, but, rather, because the language of the will is not entirely clear that Lung intended a specific legacy. In such situations, we apply a rule of construction that disfavors specific legacies and prefers demonstrative legacies. Wyman v. Roesner, 439 A.2d 516, 520 (D.C.1981).