By: Matthew O’Kane
The answer may be much more than you pay for it.
On March 27, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court put its “two cents” in when it answered the question for the Estate of Ann Aldrich in the case of Aldrich v. Basile, 39 Fla. L. Weekly S159a. The facts of the case are simple. On April 5, 2004, Ms. Aldrich wrote her will on an “E-Z Legal Form.” In her will, she listed the assets she owned at the time and devised them to her sister. Under the terms of her will, if her sister predeceased her, Ms. Aldrich devised the listed assets to her brother. Her will did not contain a provision dealing with after acquired property, a general devise or a residuary clause that would dispose of any assets not otherwise listed. The E-Z Legal Form will was properly executed. Three years later, her sister died and left Ms. Aldrich additional cash and land. On November 18, 2008, Ms. Aldrich wrote a note that attempted to amend her will acknowledging her sister’s death and devising all “her worldly possessions” to her brother. The note was not executed in accordance with the Florida Probate Code.
When Ms. Aldrich died, she was survived by her brother and two nieces from a predeceased brother. Her brother submitted her will to probate and he was appointed personal representative. The nieces asserted an interest in the after acquired property. The personal representative petitioned the court to determine who would inherit the property acquired after her will was executed. He argued that the most reasonable and appropriate construction of the will was that all of Ms. Aldrich’s property should pass to him. The nieces argued that Ms. Aldrich’s will did not have a general devise, residuary clause or an after acquired property provision. Thus, the property that Ms. Aldrich inherited from her sister should pass by Florida’s intestacy statute to the nieces. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the brother. The nieces appealed. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the nieces. Ms. Aldrich’s brother appealed the appellate court’s decision.
The Florida Supreme Court accepted the appeal and agreed with the First District Court of Appeal. The court stated that the intent of the testator is derived from the four corners of the will unless the terms of will were ambiguous. The court found that Ms. Aldrich’s will was not ambiguous. There were no provisions in the will regarding after-acquired property. The will did not contain a general devise or residuary devise. Without any mention of what to do with after acquired property, only specifically devised property passes to the brother under the will. Because the will did not express a contrary intention, the after acquired property must be distributed in accordance with Florida’s intestacy statute. The court would not re-write her will to include the after acquired assets.
Obviously, her will cost much more than Ms. Aldrich paid for it or could possibly contemplate. Justice Pariente “summed” it up best in her concurring opinion:
“While I appreciate that there are many individuals in this state who might have difficulty affording a lawyer, this case does remind me of the old adage “penny-wise and pound-foolish.” Obviously, the cost of drafting a will through the use of a pre-printed form is likely substantially lower than the cost of hiring a knowledgeable lawyer. However, as illustrated by this case, the ultimate cost of utilizing such a form to draft one’s will has the potential to far surpass the cost of hiring a lawyer at the outset. In a case such as this, which involved a substantial sum of money, the time, effort, and expense of extensive litigation undertaken in order to prove a testator’s true intent after the testator’s death can necessitate the expenditure of much more substantial amounts in attorney’s fees than was avoided during the testator’s life by the use of a pre-printed form. I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. As this case illustrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator’s intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney’s fees-the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place.”
