Estate of Zeevering, 78 A.3d 1106

Decedent George Zeevering executed a handwritten will on March 6, 2011, naming two specific bequests (a red pickup truck and a summer property) and otherwise omitting three of his five children by name.
Title to the summer property was held jointly with right of survivorship and thus did not pass by will; the only effective specific bequest was the truck to Diane Marks.
The will contained no residuary clause; the estate’s net residue was roughly $217,000 (primarily an Iron Workers account).
The executrix’s proposed distribution would divide the residue among all five children under intestacy; Appellant (Wayne Zeevering) objected, arguing the decedent intended to exclude three children from the residue.
The orphans’ court held the will did not clearly dispose of the residue and ordered distribution of the residue under Pennsylvania intestacy law; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court should read a residuary disposition into a will that omits a residuary clause and expressly excludes certain children from specific bequests	Appellant: the testator’s omission of three children from the will shows intent to exclude them from the entire estate, so residue should pass to the remaining children named (Diane and Wayne)	Estate/Orphans’ Court: the will does not clearly express intent to dispose of the residue; courts cannot rewrite or graft a residuary clause based on conjecture	Held: No. The residuary estate was not sufficiently disposed of; partial intestacy applies and residue is distributed under intestacy law.

In re Woolett’s Estate, 337 A.2d 837 (Pa. 1975) (defines specific bequest and residue; residuary passes whatever is not specifically devised)
In re Verner’s Estate, 56 A.2d 667 (Pa. 1948) (will interpretation cannot infer a residuary disposition unless intent is clear beyond reasonable doubt)
Walton Estate, 186 A.2d 32 (Pa. 1962) (court must not reform or rewrite a will)
Conlin Estate, 131 A.2d 117 (Pa. 1957) (court cannot insert substantive dispositions the testator failed to make)
In re Estate of Strahsmeier, 54 A.3d 359 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for orphans’ court factual findings and legal conclusions)