Court Opinion

ID: 9732106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:08:13.239005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:23.314737
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus,
dissenting:
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. The gift to the Foremans fails according to its own terms. Contrary to the majority’s finding, it is not apparent from the language of the will that the testator “gave and intended to give absolutely to each of his [remainder-man].” Bald Estate, 385 Pa. 176, 180, 122 A.2d 294, 296 (1956). The testator’s intent was to primarily benefit his daughter and not the remainderman. In this case, the testator did not make “an unqualified, absolute gift of a pecuniary legacy” to the Foremans. Id. There were conditions, limitations or contingencies attached to the Foremans’ gift.
¶ 2 We examine the exact language of the will in order to ascertain the testator’s/decedent’s intent:
SECOND: I give, devise and bequeath all of my estate, real and personal, to my Trustee, hereinafter named, in trust, nevertheless, upon the following uses, purposes and trusts, to wit:
A. To pay to my daughter, PAULINE RIDDLE, the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per month from income, and if the income is not sufficient, to pay the balance from principal.
B. Upon the death of my daughter, PAULINE RIDDLE, this trust shall terminate and the balance of principal and accumulated income, if any, shall be paid as follows:
1. One-half ()£) thereof to the LUTHERAN HOME FOR ORPHANS AND AGED AT GERMANTOWN, Philadelphia, Pa.
*1542. One-half ($) thereof to GEORGE T. FOREMAN and ETHEL C. FOREMAN, his wife in equal shares, or to the survivor of them.
It is plain from the language of the -will that there was an alternative attached to the gift to the Foremans, which indicates a contingent estate or interest. Bald, supra at 298. There is language in the will to support the contingent nature of the Fore-mans’ gift: (1) the Foremans could not take until the termination of the trust at the death of the testator’s daughter; (2) if there was the continued existence of a “balance of principal and accumulated income,” then the Foremans could take; and (3) only the “survivor of them” was eligible to receive the gift. The trial court found that the gift to the Foremans should vest, if at all, on the death of the testator’s daughter. The gift lapsed “because both George and Ethel died in the lifetime of the testator’s daughter.”
¶ 3 The language of the gift to the Fore-mans was interpreted by the trial court and, in its en banc opinion, the court correctly determined that the testator’s intent was “primarily benefiting his daughter by establishing a trust solely for her benefit during her lifetime.” Only three specific remaindermen were named, to wit, the Lutheran Home, Mr. Foreman and Mrs. Foreman. None of the remaindermen shared any type of familial relationship with the testator. Furthermore, if the testator “wanted to benefit the son of the Foremans, he would have made a specific provision for him.”
¶4 Only where there is ambiguity are the canons of construction used to interpret the language of a will. Hovarth Estate, 446 Pa. 484, 487, 288 A.2d 725, 726 (1972); Blough Estate, 474 Pa. 177, 185, 378 A.2d 276, 280 (1977). If the testator’s intent can be ascertained on the will’s face, the canons of construction “become an arbitrary fetter instead of a mere instrument for the ascertainment of the testator’s intent.” Loving Estate, 159 Pa.Super. 339, 48 A.2d 39, 41 (1946) (citing Mulliken v. Earnshaw, 209 Pa. 226, 229-30, 58 A. 286 (1904)). There is no sound reason in the nature of things why the actual meaning of the person using the words should not be sought in the case of a will. Id. Absent ambiguity, intent is to be determined from the “four corners of [the] will.” Blough, supra at 280 (citing Estate of Jacobson, 460 Pa. 118, 122, 331 A.2d 447, 449 (1975)). The trial court correctly determined that the “reasonable and most simplistic meaning to be applied are the meaning of the words of the testator.” In this case, there was no ambiguity because the testator had no intent to benefit the son of the Fore-mans. His intent was to benefit his daughter and, if possible, the Lutheran Home and the Foremans or the “survivor of them.”
¶ 5 Furthermore, the trial court found the use of the words “survivor of them” to mean that if Husband should survive Wife, he would take her one-quarter share or the total one-half share of the gift. The reverse being true for Wife. Use of the word “survivor” has been construed to refer “only to living persons and not to the estates of the dead.” Loving Estate, supra at 41. The testator had no purpose to benefit the son of the Foremans. The testator could have made specific mention of him in the will. The conclusion is drawn that the primary purpose of the will was to benefit the testator’s daughter and, if possible, to benefit the Lutheran Home or Mr. or Mrs. Foreman.
¶ 6 The general rule in interpreting wills favors a vesting interest as opposed to a contingent interest in order to avoid intestacy regarding primary beneficiaries. McCauley’s Estate, 257 Pa. 377, 381, 101 A. 827, 828 (1917); Fields Estate, 58 Pa. D. & C. 641 (O.C.Phila.1947). There is no intestacy as a result of the trial court’s interpretation of this will. The primary beneficiary of the - will, the testator’s daughter, had benefited from the use of her life estate prior to her death. The residuary gift does not completely lapse because the Lutheran Home was deter*155mined to be the appropriate taker under the will. The canons of construction are inapplicable in the interpretation of this will because there is no ambiguity. Ho-varth, supra.
¶ 7 Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s decision based upon the fact that the gift to the Foremans lapsed because they both predeceased the life tenant.