Court Opinion

ID: 9679400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:51:56.451441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:13.272310
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
We have said many times that the cardinal rule in the construction of wills is to ascertain the intention of the testator. Since 1866, by statute, it has been the duty of the courts of this state to carry into effect the true intent of the parties in the construction of any instrument creating or conveying an interest in real estate. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-205 (Reissue 1976). The majority opinion ignores these rules by reverting to a method of decision which defeats the intention of the testator.
In this case it is clear from the language of the will that the testator intended his wife to have the use of the property with full power of disposition during her lifetime, but upon her death any property remaining should go to his foster daughter and her children. In previous cases we have described the estate devised to the wife under such a will as a life estate with power of disposition. Merrill v. Pardun, 125 Neb. 701, 251 N.W. 834 (1933).
By giving effect to only a part of the language of the will, the majority opinion declares the will devised an estate in fee simple to the wife. By this process of magic words and bootstrapping, the remaining language of the devise is declared to be of no legal effect.
I respectfully dissent.
Clinton, J., joins in this dissent.