- 22 -
to make the payments. We must ask ourselves, how would decedent
resolve this situation if she knew of the problem? In re Estate
of Burke, supra.
We first deal with petitioner's argument that the will must
be construed to maximize the marital deduction. The case cited
by petitioner, Estate of Ericson v. Ericson, 74 N.J. 300, 377
A.2d 898 (1977), does not support petitioner's argument. The
court in Ericson specifically found that one of the intentions of
the testator was to minimize taxes through the use of the marital
deduction, and thus the court interpreted the will accordingly.
In our case, there is no evidence of an intent to minimize taxes,
much less utilize the marital deduction. Therefore, an intent to
maximize the marital deduction will not be read into the will.
We do not believe that decedent wanted to create an option
for her daughter to buy the stock. Decedent wanted her daughter
to own the stock. The daughter owned 25 percent of the agency
stock and already had an option to purchase the remaining stock
upon her mother's death. The stream of payments was calculated
to equal only one-half the value of decedent's agency stock.
Decedent's own words were: "I give, devise and bequeath"; these
are not words that a business person would use to create an
option. Patricia Low's testimony that her mother wanted her "to
have the opportunity to buy the stock" upon her death is not
plausible as a true reflection of her mother's intent under the
circumstances. Petitioner offered no other evidence to support
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011