Estate of Catherine E. Dowell, Deceased, Patricia Low, Executrix - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
          daughter, PATRICIA LOW, with the understanding that she will                
          pay".  We must determine whether this phrase creates a condition            
          precedent, a condition subsequent, a charge on the bequest, or an           
          option to purchase agency stock.                                            
               "The judicial function in construing a will is to ascertain            
          and give effect to the probable intention of the testator."  In             
          re Estate of Conway, 50 N.J. 525, 527, 236 A.2d 841, 842 (1967).            
          The Supreme Court of New Jersey has given the following guidance            
          on will construction and the "doctrine of probable intent":                 
               While a court may not, of course, conjure up an                        
               interpretation or derive a missing testamentary                        
               provision out of the whole cloth, it may, on the basis                 
               of the entire will, competent extrinsic evidence and                   
               common human impulses strive reasonably to ascertain                   
               and carry out what the testator probably intended                      
               should be the disposition if the present situation                     
               developed.  [In re Estate of Burke, 48 N.J. 50, 64, 222                
               A.2d 273, 280 (1966).]                                                 
               We are no longer limited simply to searching out the                   
               probable meaning intended by the words and phrases in                  
               the will.  Relevant circumstances, including the                       
               testator's own expressions of intent, Wilson v.                        
               Flowers, 58 N.J. 250, 262-63, 277 A.2d 199 (1971), must                
               also be studied, and their significance assayed.                       
               Within prescribed limits, guided primarily by the terms                
               of the will, but also giving due weight to the other                   
               factors mentioned above [citing In re Estate of Burke,                 
               supra], a court should strive to construe a                            
               testamentary instrument to achieve the result most                     
               consonant with the testator's "probable intent."                       
               [Engle v. Siegel, 74 N.J. 287, 291, 377 A.2d 892, 894                  
               (1977); emphasis added.]                                               
               The obligation of a court * * * is to effectuate the                   
               probable intent of the testator when consideration of                  
               the will as a whole together with extrinsic evidence,                  
               demonstrates, under all the circumstances, that a                      
               patent or latent ambiguity exists in the language used                 
               and such intent, overcoming the mere literal reading of                




Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011