- 18 -
nearly 30 years later in anticipation of litigation. Therein,
Mr. Chambers purports to recall the intentions underlying certain
portions of the testamentary language. Since this case was
submitted fully stipulated under Rule 122, we have had no
opportunity to view the demeanor of this witness, to obtain any
information regarding the basis for and extent of his memory of
conversations with Mr. Lassiter, or to assess his credibility.
In this context, we are unwilling to rely on or give any weight
to Mr. Chambers’ statements. Hence, to engage in a parsing of
the complex area of law relating to parol evidence would be a
moot and futile exercise. We shall sustain respondent’s
objection. To summarize, we shall exclude stipulated paragraphs
12, 13, 14, 15, 25, and 52, and Exhibits 9-P, 10-P, 11-P, 12-P,
13-P, 26-P, 27-P, 28-J, 29-J, and 30-J.
III. Revocation of 1970 Will
Since a determination that the 1970 will has been revoked
would obviate any need to scrutinize its terms and the impact
thereon of the 1995 disclaimers, we begin our substantive
discussion with the issue of its effectiveness. Documents filed
with both this Court and the Probate Court reference a belief on
the part of members of the Lassiter family that a more recent
will or codicil existed but could not be located. For instance,
each of the eight disclaimers recites that “A subsequent will
which bequeaths and devises substantially all of the Decedent’s
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011