The case involved a dispute over the distribution of assets from the estate of the decedent, Michael McAleer, who died in 2016. The decedent had executed a will in 2013 that left his entire estate to his wife, Kathleen McAleer. However, at the time of his death, the decedent also owned several assets jointly with his brother, Patrick McAleer.
After the decedent’s death, Kathleen filed a petition for probate and sought to have the jointly-owned assets transferred to her, arguing that the assets were intended to be gifts to her husband and not subject to probate. However, Patrick argued that the decedent did not intend to gift the assets to his wife, and that they should be distributed according to the terms of the decedent’s will.
The trial court found that the decedent did not intend to gift the jointly-owned assets to his wife and ordered that they be distributed according to the terms of the will. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the trial court had erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of the decedent’s intent in interpreting the will.
The appellate court found that the decedent’s will was ambiguous with respect to the jointly-owned assets and that the trial court should have considered extrinsic evidence, such as the decedent’s intentions and previous estate planning documents, to determine the decedent’s intent with respect to the disposition of the assets. The case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous language in estate planning documents and the role of extrinsic evidence in interpreting the intentions of the decedent.
No comment