822 N.W.2d 709
S.D.2012Background
- James W. Kesling executed a holographic will on April 2, 2008; James died July 4, 2008.
- Sandra Kesling was his wife and three daughters from a prior marriage were his heirs and co-personal representatives.
- The will named Sandra as beneficiary and referenced dividing the estate among the three daughters after Sandra's death.
- The fourth sentence states the estate should be administered by the daughters and, upon Sandra's death, divided equally among the three daughters.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment holding the will unambiguously gave Sandra a life estate with the daughters as remaindermen; Sandra appealed seeking extrinsic evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fourth sentence is ambiguous regarding dispositive effect | Kesling arguing ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence | Kesling contends the language is unambiguous and controls | Unambiguous; no extrinsic evidence needed |
| Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to clarify intent | Sandra argues extrinsic evidence should be admitted due to ambiguity | Estate contends no ambiguity exists in four-sentence provision | Not admitted; court finds no ambiguity and reliance on four corners of will |
| What is the proper interpretation of the will’s dispositive scheme | Sandra contends Sandra may take outright or as life estate with alternate outcomes | Estate argues Sandra has life estate with daughters as remaindermen | Court adopts Sandra as life tenant with daughters as remaindermen; extrinsic evidence not needed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Klauzer, 604 N.W.2d 474 (S.D. 2000) (ambiguous language may require extrinsic evidence for intent)
- In re Estate of Seefeldt, 720 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 2006) (interpretation of will; de novo standard; extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists)
- In re Walsh's Estate, 239 N.W.2d 240 (S.D. 1931) (meaning of precatory language in wills and testamentary dispositions)
- Estate of Nelson, 274 N.W.2d 584 (S.D. 1978) (precatory language; context matters in determining testamentary intent)
- Novak v. Novak, 741 N.W.2d 222 (S.D. 2007) (testator intent governs when language is clear; extrinsic evidence for ambiguity)