Court Opinion

ID: 9552605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:13:50.800149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:21.269832
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I am in accord with the opinion of the court in case No. 85-106 to the effect that Article X of this will did not lapse upon the prior death of Mrs. Newell’s husband. I dissent from that aspect of the opinion which reverses the district court in case No. 85-105 and holds that pursuant to § 2-6-109, W.S.1977, the nieces and nephews of Mrs. Newell are to receive the unpaid balance of the proceeds from the installment sale contract covering the Read lands.
As my point of departure, I would rely upon the provisions of § 2-6-105, W.S. 1977, which provides:
“The intention of a testator as expressed in his will controls the legal effect of his dispositions. The rules of construction expressed in the succeeding sections of this article apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will.”
In my view the majority mistakenly assumes that the application of the nonademption statute is consistent with Mrs. Newell’s intent. As I read this will, it seems clear to me that Mrs. Newell wanted to preserve the Read lands as a family ranch, so long as it was the purpose of other owners to do that. In my view, however, when this will is read in its entirety, one becomes impressed with the proposition that the entire focus of the will was to provide for Mrs. Newell’s grandsons who were the beneficiaries of the testamentary trust. The only exception to that overall purpose and motive was to preserve the Read ranch as a family ranch, and once it was sold by those who owned an interest in it, I am satisfied that Mrs. Newell wanted the cash proceeds included in the testamentary trust for her grandsons.
At the time Mrs. Newell executed her will, the attorney who assisted her in that endeavor quite properly would have advised her that “[t]he common-law doctrine that ademption results where there has been a sale of the specific property by the testator before the will becomes operative * * * ” was in effect in Nebraska. In re McClow’s Estate, 205 Neb. 739, 290 N.W.2d 186 (1980), citing Baacke v. Baacke, 50 Neb. 18, 69 N.W. 303 (1896); In re Estate of Bose, 136 Neb. 156, 285 N.W. 319 (1939); and Austin v. Austin, 147 Neb. 109, 22 N.W.2d 560 (1946). In light of the adoption in Wyoming of the principle of *983equitable conversion, Baldwin v. McDonald, 24 Wyo. 108, 156 P. 27 (1916), it would have been an appropriate prediction that the law in Wyoming would adopt the concept of ademption. I do not feel free to ignore these legal facts in resolving the issue of the actual intent of the testator, Mrs. Newell. In executing her will she would have been entitled to rely upon advice as to the state of the law from her Nebraska attorney in concluding that the language and provisions used in this will would result in the proceeds from the sale of the Read lands becoming a part of the trust for her two grandsons.
In Dainton v. Watson, Wyo., 658 P.2d 79 (1983), this court said that it has been its long-accepted position that the intent of the testator, as determined from the will, governs. This rule is reaffirmed by the provisions of § 2-6-105, W.S.1977. I would continue to apply those principles to the effect that, as I have noted, this will speaks to an intent of benefiting the testatrix’s grandsons exclusively with the exception of an acknowledged desire to maintain the Read family ranch. This latter purpose of course was frustrated by the sale.
I would also point out that the application of the nonademption provision of the Wyoming Probate Code creates a somewhat anomalous situation in that the grandsons receive the proceeds of any amounts paid on the installment land contract prior to Mrs. Newell’s death, and her nephews and nieces receive only that payable subsequent to her death. I have some difficulty with the statutory logic that the application of the nonademption provision thus effectuates the intent of a testator, as presumed by the legislators when it leaves some of the property in the hands of the nieces and nephews but the balance goes to the testamentary trust for the grandsons.
I would affirm the district court in all respects.