Section 18.20 Intent

• Library: Estate Administration 2014 Supp

B. (§18.20) Intent

Construction of wills involves matching language with physical objects or other property to ensure that the decedent’s property is disposed of according to the decedent’s intent. One consideration in determining whether the decedent’s intention is given effect is whether the decedent’s intention is allowed by law. No dispute is necessary for construction; rather, the determination is of the decedent’s intention, which in turn may or may not bring about a dispute. Generally speaking, construction is ascertaining the testator’s intent as expressed in the will when read in light of surrounding circumstances and in view of the admissible evidence, including the application of the testator’s intention to the facts and circumstances with which the will deals. Garth v. Garth, 41 S.W. 238 (Mo. 1897); Mitchell v. Bd. of Curators of Morrisville Coll., 266 S.W. 481 (Mo. 1924); Rowe v. Strother, 111 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. 1937).

In the process of construction, a distinction is generally made between donative and nondonative conveyances and instruments, such as between wills or revocable trusts and deeds or other contracts. Wills, revocable trusts, and donative or beneficiary deeds present the court with unilateral transactions to which the decedent was not bound during the decedent’s life, and the donee or potential beneficiary may have no grounds on which to claim reliance like that person might claim in a two-party contractual situation. The intent of the decedent is controlling when determining the meaning of a trust or a will. Lehr v. Collier, 909 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995); see also:

· Ittner v. United Mo. Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (in construing a will, if the testator’s intent is plain and unambiguous, it governs unless contrary to law)

· Hollis v. Estate of Hollis, 845 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)

· Smoot v. McCandless, 461 S.W.2d 776 (Mo. 1970) (intent of the testator must be enforced unless it is in violation of the law)

· A.G. Edwards Trust Co. v. Miller, 59 S.W.3d 550, 552 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)

· Williams v. Duncan ex rel. Pauline M. Babcock, Living Trust, 55 S.W.3d 896, 900 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001)

· Jackson v. Williams, Robinson, White & Rigler, P.C., 230 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (the court construed mutual wills as stating an intention not to modify but subject to change by either party; the disinherited heirs had no claim against the drafters of the mutual wills because they were omitted from the modified will of the surviving spouse)

· Kimberlin v. Dull, 218 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (the...