Court Opinion

ID: 9857909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:06:59.452863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:50.005460
License: Public Domain

Hays, J.
I concur specially. Plaintiff contends the two wills are mutual, that is, executed pursuant to an agreement, and seeks specific performance of such agreement. I assume them to be mutual.
It seems to me the real question is — -what are the terms and conditions of the agreement? There is nothing in either *826will, standing alone, that indicates a prior agreement or that places any restrictions upon the maker thereof. It is ambulatory as most wills are.
William’s will gives to his wife all of his property that he owns at the time of his death, to be her own subject to a condition if she survives him. The will then provides: If he survives her, then such property as would have gone to her, had she survived him, shall go to the plaintiff, as trustee. Thus, under this contingency, plaintiff’s interest in the estate is entirely contingent upon William making no revocation or change in that will. In the event that he dies before his wife, his will provides that all property owned by him at time of his death shall go to her with the proviso that if such property is not disposed of by her, by will or otherwise, at the time of her death, it shall go to the plaintiff, as trustee. Thus whatever interest plaintiff may have in his estate, under this contingency, is dependent upon whether or not she disposed of that property, during her lifetime, by will or otherwise. Clearly, under this proviso, she is free to do' with this property as she pleases.
Nettie’s will is identical to his except for the transposition of names. Under her will, standing alone, plaintiff’s rights to any of her property are exactly the same as above set forth in reference to William’s will.
Reading each will in the light of the other and considering them together, it seems clear that neither William nor Nettie was much concerned as to what became of his or her property, in the event he or she died first, after the survivor was through with it. This is emphasized by his or her authorization to the survivor to dispose of such property during his or her lifetime, by will or otherwise, with only such that might remain undisposed of going to the plaintiff, as trustee. If each will had merely authorized “disposal during her or his lifetime” it might be argued that the survivor might dispose of such as was necessary for his support, see Sample v. Butler University, 211 Ind. 122, 4 N.E.2d 545, 5 N.E.2d 888, 108 A. L. R. 857, and annotation at page 867, but by the inclusion of the words “by will or otherwise” this interpretation is clearly eliminated.
Under plaintiff’s theory, these two wills must be construed *827as follows: each testator restricted the use of his property, if he was the survivor, but left it unrestricted in case he died first; as survivor, his use of his own property was restricted by his will, which became irrevocable upon death of the other, and plaintiff’s rights became vested at least to the extent that there could be no disposal by a new will, yet, under the terms of the wills, he could dispose of whatever he may have received from her by another will. This position is of course untenable.
It seems to me that when a will says “all property owned by me at the time of my death” it will include whatever property he might receive under the will of the other, as surviving spouse. In the light of this reciprocal disposal clause, by will or otherwise, the fair and logical conclusion is that each, after the death of the other, had a right to do as he pleased with all property then held by him, even to the extent of executing new wills, and that plaintiff’s interest therein was conditioned upon that contingency. In other words, do with his own as he could do with hers. William, by execution of the later will, did what he had a right to do and thereby eliminated plaintiff. He having no rights in the property, his suit for specific performance must fail.
Furthermore, the rule appears to be that specific performance demands a degree of certainty and definiteness which leaves in the mind of the court no reasonable doubt as to what the parties intended under their agreement, and no doubt of the specific thing equity is to compel to be done. 49 Am. Jur., Specific Performance, sections 22-25. Under this entire record such certainty, in my judgment, cannot be found and for this reason, if no other, this action must fail.