This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns the estate of a deceased individual (Decedent) who, along with their spouse (Stepmother), executed a joint will in 1982. The will provided that the survivor would inherit all property absolutely, with subsequent provisions for the distribution of property to their respective children upon the survivor's death. After Decedent's death in 1997, disputes arose between four of Decedent's children (Contestants) and Stepmother regarding the interpretation of the will, particularly whether it constituted a binding contract to make a will and the disposition of certain property (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Miguel County: Held that the will was not a contract to make a will and denied Contestants' motions regarding property disposition, discovery, and a jury trial (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Contestants): Argued that the will was a contract to make a will, that the trial court erred in denying further discovery, in allowing Stepmother to sell certain property, and in denying their request for a jury trial (para 1).
- Respondent (Stepmother): Contended that the will was not a contract to make a will, that she had the right to sell property as the personal representative, and that certain Contestants had waived their rights to litigate the issue (paras 3, 16).
Legal Issues
- Was the joint will a contract to make a will?
- Did the trial court err in denying further discovery and the admission of extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguities in the will?
- Did the trial court err in allowing Stepmother to sell certain property before resolving the ambiguity in the will?
- Were Contestants entitled to a jury trial on factual issues related to the will's interpretation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 18).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Bosson and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
Contract to Make a Will: The Court held that the will's language did not clearly and convincingly establish a contract to make a will. The absolute devise to Stepmother in Paragraph II negated any contractual obligation, and the ambiguity in other provisions did not meet the standard of proof required to establish such a contract (paras 7-11). However, the Court allowed for the possibility of extrinsic documentary evidence to prove a contract on remand (para 12).
Ambiguity in the Will: The Court found that the will's provisions regarding the disposition of property were ambiguous, particularly the use of terms like "our property" and "all property acquired by either of us." This ambiguity warranted the admission of extrinsic evidence to determine Decedent's intent (paras 13-15).
Sale of Property: The Court ruled that the trial court's decision to allow Stepmother to sell property was premature, as the ambiguity in the will needed to be resolved first. The trial court must reconsider this issue on remand (para 16).
Jury Trial: The Court determined that Contestants were entitled to a jury trial on factual issues related to the testator's intent, as the ambiguity in the will raised controverted questions of fact (para 17).