HomeMy WebLinkAbout0965 r'
i
- ,
~ "
i '
. , \ \
~~i l? re~icl:s fc~l 1~~~•:s : .
I~cn•~ 7'hcrcrt~rc• !;c it Y.no~m That it is Ap,reed I~I
. 13y l:milou Layne ltobinson That All Personal _ I
Property Such as Realestate Pioney, or Any= .
thing She May At Presetit Own Or Hereinafter I
Acquire Shall Goe to Her Son, Tommy Robinson
. after Her Death, To Have and To~Hold His '
Lifetime. ~ ~
~
The will was apparently prepared by the testatrix. I~i
The cardinal rule of will construction is the
. ,
ascertainment and effectuation of the testatrix's intent.
However, a court may not make a will, improve upon a will or ~
, give to a will an inLent not deducible from the instrument.
~
! Threlkeld's ~x'rs v. Synodical Presbyterian Orphana~,e of -
~
I Anchorage, 307 Ky. 235, 210 S.W.2d 766 (1948). In the
~
~ present case, the trial court found that Emma Lau left Tommy
l .
E
` a life estate~ but faiZed to devise the remainder which
~
~ passed by intestacy. Tommy took the remainder under. the
intestacy st<~tutes.
The a~pcllants urge th~t since F.mma Lou intended
to f;ive To?rmy a,lire estat~ only, she wanted the remainder
ro Pas~ to her ~,randuat~~hters. There is noChint; in the
~ .
~
~ instr~:ment or tlie rc~cord L-o su~port that proposition. While
~ thc~re i~ a~r_esumpti.nn in Ch~ lr:ca a~;ainst partial intestacy,
~ cc~ui~t r~av r~c~~ f~~rni :f~ ,i r~issir.,~, provision rc~ncerrling the
~ - .
ciis~~c~siti_on ~f r~ rem:~incler if stich is nc~t able to be dedueed _
:?-,,r~~ l:in;•,~~:i;~,r~. tic•r~~ L}:crc 's:; tl~ inc~ntic,iz c~f ot_t~er hetic-
~ .
` ! ic_i<v-i.e~r> ~,r cli5~~c~~;i.ti_c~t~s. Tt:c•re£Ure, .it is not ciedu~ible ,
~
#
e
~ ~ ~~c~r, ttie t•;i l t r~ ~:~;t~m thc~ r~r~~ i n~lrr wa~; i n~ c~nclecl rc? pasS .
S~
K.
~ .
~ _ _ - ~,R 366 ~~~E 962
• ~~o~
~
~