Court Opinion

ID: 9694427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:41:16.484977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:06.560104
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. To me, this result is compelled by the plain explicitness of testatrix’s language, and there is no need to search further.
In my view, the Orphans’ Court of Venango County correctly concluded that testatrix’s will was unambiguous. The orphans’ court found that testatrix’s reference to the intestate laws was a specific direction defining the class of persons among whom the corpus of testatrix’s testamentary trust would be distributed upon the death of its life tenant. Testatrix desired the Act of June 7, 1917, P.L. 429, 20 P.S. §1.3 (1950) (now 20 Pa.S. §2103 (Special Pamphlet 1972)), to designate the takers, but obviously did not intend the terms of that Act to control what share each of her transferees would receive. In lieu of the statutory distribution scheme, testatrix expressly directed that her remainder beneficiaries shall “share and share alike.”