Court Opinion

ID: 9546622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:33:03.234057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:41.720713
License: Public Domain

CORN. J.
(dissenting). The facts, as well as a copy of the will, are set forth in the majority opinion. The following definitions will aid in a better understanding of my dissenting opinion.
A will is the disposition of one’s property to take effect after death.
A will is the legal declaration of a man’s intentions, which he wills to be performed after his death as to the disposition of his property.
There can be no contention by anyone that property passes or is disposed of by a will before the testator dies. Therefore, this property belonged to Ada Fairbanks up to the time of her death.
84 O. S. 1951 §151 provides:
*351“A will is to be construed according to the intention of the testator. Where his intention cannot have effect to its full extent, it must have effect as far as possible.”
Section 152 provides:
“Ascertaining intention. In case of uncertainty, arising upon the face of a will, as to the application of any of its provisions, the testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking into view the circumstances under which it was made, exclusive of his oral declarations.”
Section 155 also provides:
“Irreconcilable Parts. All the parts of a will are to be construed in relation- to each other, and so as to form one consistent whole, if possible but where several parts are absolutely ir-reconcible, the latter as to position must prevail.”
In Cobb v. Newman, 201 Okla. 318, 205 P. 2d 858, we held:
“The object and prime purpose in the construction of any will is to arrive at and give effect to the intention of the testator. And in ascertaining such intention the will is to be considered as a whole and the several provisions thereof in their relation to each other.
“Where in one paragraph of a will there is a specific devise of land in fee simple, and in another paragraph dealing expressly with such devise there is prescribed a condition to the effect that the title so devised is to be defeated in part upon a contingency if same occurs during the ownership of the devi-see, held, the condition is consistent with the title devised and valid.”
Under the third paragraph of the will it is plain to my mind that the testator intended for his wife to have the property in fee simple to sell, barter or give away, if she so desired, during her lifetime, but in case any of the property remained undisposed of at her death it go to Charles H. Fairbanks or his legal heirs.
The majority opinion cites 84 O.S. 1951 §213, and cases construing said section, as authority. These cases hold that a survivor who inherits land thereunder may dispose of the same by will. I find no fault with the construction given to said section. Said section deals with the disposition of property that a person acquires by joint industry, without any restrictions, where he dies intestate. Section 213, and cases construing the same, are not applicable to the facts in this case and have no application whatever where a person dies leaving a will. There is no limitation in said section preventing a person who inherits property acquired by joint industry from disposing of the property by will if he desires to do so. In other words, property inherited which was acquired by joint industry can be disposed of by the survivor, in the same manner that he can dispose of property that he has acquired the title to by purchase or otherwise.
16 O.S. 1951 §29 provides:
“Every estate in land which shall be granted, conveyed or devised by deed or will, shall be deemed an estate in fee simple and of inheritance, unless limited hy express words.”
So it appears to me that the language in the third paragraph of the will executed by Orin Fairbanks is clear and certain as to what effect it was to have on paragraph two of the will, and was not inconsistent therewith.
It is thoroughly demonstrated in this case that paragraph three of the will is not inconsistent with paragraph two thereof. Ada Fairbanks owned this property and held the unlimited use of it and exclusive right to sell, barter or give away the property for a period of more than 30 years. I think the majority opinion places a limitation on the manner of how a person can dispose of his property by a will which is contrary to our statutes and all the decisions of this court in construing a will, i.e., let the intent of the testator prevail unless it violates some law, statutory or otherwise, or is against public policy.
I respectfully dissent.