New York Probate and Estate Administration Lawyer Blog
In New York, the standard for will construction is that the court will seek to determine the testator’s intent, based on the language used in the will. This is known as the “plain meaning” rule. The court will interpret the language of the will to give effect to the testator’s intent, using the words in their ordinary and commonly understood meanings.
If the language of the will is clear and unambiguous, the court will give effect to the plain meaning of the words used. However, if the language of the will is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court may consider extrinsic evidence, such as the testator’s declarations, to determine his or her intent. Overall, the goal of will construction in New York is to determine the testator’s intent as accurately as possible, and to give effect to that intent to the greatest extent possible.
In the Matter of Estate of George Ballas the court was asked to interpret the terms of a will with respect to the distribution of the residuary estate.
Background
The decedent, George Ballas, was a successful businessman who founded the Weed Eater company. He passed away in 2018 at the age of 85, leaving behind a substantial estate. The primary issue in this case was the interpretation of a provision in his will that directed the distribution of his residuary estate.
The will directed that the residue of George Ballas’s estate was to be divided into three equal shares. One share was to be distributed to his wife, Irene, or to her estate if she predeceased him. The second share was to be distributed to the George Ballas Trust, a revocable trust that he had established during his lifetime. The third share was to be distributed to the Ballas Family Foundation, a charitable organization that he had established.
The question before the court was whether the George Ballas Trust was entitled to the second share of the residue of George Ballas’s estate, or whether that share should be distributed to his residuary beneficiaries.
Discussion
The court began its analysis by reviewing the terms of the George Ballas Trust agreement. The trust agreement provided that the trust assets were to be used for the benefit of George Ballas during his lifetime and for the benefit of his wife, Irene, after his death. Upon Irene’s death, the trust assets were to be distributed to the Ballas Family Foundation.
The court then turned to the language of the will. The will provided that the second share of the residue of George Ballas’s estate was to be distributed to the George Ballas Trust, “as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time.” The court noted that the trust agreement had been amended several times during George Ballas’s lifetime.
The court concluded that the second share of the residue of George Ballas’s estate should be distributed to the George Ballas Trust, as it existed at the time of George Ballas’s death. The court found that the language of the will clearly contemplated that the trust agreement could be amended, restated, supplemented, or otherwise modified from time to time, and that the trust agreement, as it existed at the time of George Ballas’s death, was the most recent and operative version of the agreement.
The court rejected the argument of the residuary beneficiaries that the second share of the residue should be distributed to them, rather than the George Ballas Trust. The court found that the language of the will was clear and unambiguous, and that the testator’s intent was to benefit the George Ballas Trust.
Conclusion
This case highlight the important of making sure that your will is written by an experienced New York estate attorney who can ensure that the language in the will is clear and unambiguous and that the language represents your intent. Failure your to do so may result in your assets being distributed in a manner that is inconsistent with your intentions.