Court Opinion

ID: 9585534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:01:28.274485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:22.563923
License: Public Domain

Justice Exum
dissenting.
I dissent essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Whichard in his dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals.
I think the majority errs in construing this will by focusing on whether Item Four, standing alone, is ambiguous. This is not the question. The question is whether the will, read as a whole, creates an ambiguity with regard to the testator’s intent in disposing of the remainder interest in the real property in the event his wife, but not his mother, should predecease him. I think there is an ambiguity. Item Three of the will makes it clear that the testator intended for his mother only to have a life estate in the property. Item Four expresses the testator’s intent in the event both his wife and mother should predecease him. In that event he desired plaintiffs to have the remainder interest together with all other property which he owned. The testator did not express himself with regard to his intent in the event his wife, but not his mother, predeceased him.
As Judge Whichard pointed out in his dissent, the will is subject to two interpretations. One is that the testator’s mother should have only a life interest in the property and the remainder interest should lapse and pass under the residuary clause. The second is that the remainder should lapse and pass as an intestacy.
Where a will is subject to two interpretations, the one favoring complete testacy should prevail. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 225 N.C. 375, 35 S.E. 2d 231 (1945); Coddington v. Stone, 217 N.C. 714, 9 S.E. 2d 420 (1940).
My vote, therefore, is to reverse the Court of Appeals and to sustain the judgment of the trial court.