- 19 -
event, the language of the respective wills does not lend
assistance in determining the intent of decedent and Kathleen in
executing the 1980 Deed of Separation.
Kathleen's testimony at trial is of minimal assistance due
to her limited recollection of events 14 years ago.6 A review of
the chronological evolution of the drafts of the Deed of
Separation and Kathleen's deposition testimony in early 1983 in
the equitable distribution action provide the most probative and
most contemporaneous construction of the Deed of Separation.
There are two drafts and the final version of the life
insurance paragraph of the Deed of Separation, numbered paragraph
12 in the final version and numbered paragraph 11 in the two
drafts. In both drafts and in the final version, the first
sentence recites that decedent had various life insurance
policies of which Kathleen and/or the children were the
beneficiaries.7 The second sentence in both drafts and in the
6 The testimony of the various lawyers involved in drafting
the Deed of Separation, in drafting the 1984 and 1987 wills, and
in prosecuting or defending the equitable distribution action was
generally conclusory and not particularly informative on the
critical issue in this case. None of them had any files or notes
on the issue in this case. Mr. Frazier admitted he was simply a
scrivener writing down the parties' wishes in the Deed of
Separation and not representing either spouse. Mr. Johnson knew
nothing about the Deed of Separation or the nature of the
domestic matter his firm had handled for decedent. It is not
clear that in 1984 and 1987 Mr. Johnson even knew about
Kathleen's remarriage.
7 In fact the children were not beneficiaries of any of the
policies at the time the Deed of Separation was executed or
(continued...)
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011