Court Opinion

ID: 9572539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:42:41.396883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:27.927575
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. The majority has interpreted a will which is clear on its face to disinherit two of decedent’s grandchildren, who are her heirs at law.
In Anderson v. Wilson, 155 Iowa 415, 429, 136 N.W. 134, 139 (1912), the Iowa court said:
Finally, if we are to indulge in any presumption at all in interpreting the will, it should be done with due regard to that well-established rule that an heir at law shall not be disinherited on the strength of a doubtful construction of a will.
When a testator names a class and a person is in the class, his or her title is as complete as though he or she had been mentioned by name. Anderson v. Wilson, 155 Iowa at 420, 136 N.W. at 136. There must be a patent or latent ambiguity before extrinsic evidence can be admitted to show testator’s intent. In re Estate of Anderson, 359 N.W.2d 479, 481 (Iowa 1984); In re Estate of Kiel, 357 N.W.2d 628, 630 (Iowa 1984).
*472The language of decedent’s will clearly gives the property to a class (children) and provides for distribution to grandchildren if a child predeceases decedent. There is no reason to go beyond decedent’s will.