Court Opinion

ID: 9514396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:49:11.378439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:16.995701
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 89.] I join the dissent of Judge DeVine.
[¶40.] It seems to me that the majority opinion strains mightily to make nonsense out of sense and ambiguity out of clarity. Robert’s will provides:
I have intentionally omitted all of my heirs and all other persons whomsoever, who are not specifically mentioned herein, and I hereby generally and specifically disinherit each and all persons whomsoever claiming to be my heirs-at-law and each and all persons whomsoever who, if I died intestate, would be entitled to any part of my estate except those herein provided for.
(Emphasis added).
[¶ 41.] One would think it would be adequate to “intentionally omit” all of one’s relatives — not generally, but specifically and not once, but twice. How many times must Robert say it to satisfy the majority opinion? If that language does not satisfy the majority opinion, then what, if anything, will?
[¶42.] The majority opinion even twists Robert’s stated intention. Robert wanted two things. He wanted to leave everything to Martin and he wanted to disinherit his relatives. Instead of accepting Robert’s intentions as stated, the majority opinion states:
“[C]an it honestly be said, after resolving all doubts against the' State, that Robert Jetter intended the State to have his property if his brother Martin did not survive him? If he had had such a bizarre intent, would he have left any doubt?” Clearly if that had been Jetter’s intent, a single sentence so indicating in his will would have sufficed. However such direction cannot be found in that document.
I submit that such direction can (and should) be found in that document. In fact, Robert’s stated intention to disinherit his relatives was not limited to his will. There was testimony that Robert stated that he and Martin were “getting kind of tired of loaning money” to these other relatives and that “Barb and her brother and sisters, they think we’re a couple of crazy old bastards living out here and we don’t want them to have a f — k—g thing.”
[¶ 43.] The majority opinion uses this testimony to state: “Where a will is ambiguous on its face, such extrinsic evidence is admissible to establish the intent of the testator.” I submit that the majority opinion is using this extrinsic evidence to defeat, rather than to establish, the intent of the testator.
[¶ 44.] I would reverse and remand for the trial court to follow the testator’s intention and disinherit the relatives as he directed.