## Facts

- Burnette K. Guterl died on December 31, 1953, leaving a will admitted to probate in Essex County, New Jersey.
- The will named an executrix and provided benefits for Guterl’s two nieces, Helen K. Arnheiter and Mary B. Arnheiter.
- Paragraph 2 directed the executrix to sell the testatrix’s “undivided one-half interest” in premises described as “No. 304 Harrison Avenue, Harrison, New Jersey,” and to place the proceeds into trusts for the nieces.
- Guterl did not own any interest in property known as 304 Harrison Avenue at the time the will was executed or at death.
- Guterl did own an undivided one-half interest in property located at 317 Harrison Avenue, and it was the only property she owned on Harrison Avenue.
- The executrix filed a Chancery Division action seeking equitable relief to “correct” the will by changing “304” to “317” in the property description.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may reform or amend a duly executed will to correct an address mistake by substituting a different street number in a devise of real property.
2. If reformation is unavailable, whether the court may construe the will to apply the devise to the property the testatrix actually owned by disregarding the erroneous number.

## Decision

- The court held it lacked power to reform or rewrite the will by substituting “317” for “304.”
- The court nonetheless construed the devise to apply to the testatrix’s undivided one-half interest in 317 Harrison Avenue.
- The court treated the incorrect street number as a nonessential misdescription and gave effect to the disposition through construction rather than textual alteration.
- The court relied on the maxim *falsa demonstratio non nocet* and supporting authority applying that rule to misdescribed devises.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may not correct, reform, or rewrite a will by adding or substituting words, even when extrinsic evidence shows a drafting mistake.
- A will may be construed to disregard an erroneous or superfluous element in a description when the remaining description, read in context, clearly identifies the intended person or property (*falsa demonstratio non nocet*).
- When a description contains multiple particulars and not all fit any single subject, less essential particulars may be rejected if the remainder clearly fits one subject.
- A misdescription in a devise does not defeat the gift when the instrument as a whole sufficiently points to the intended property and the erroneous detail is not necessary to identification.

## Conclusion

The court refused to alter the will’s language but enforced the devise by construing the mistaken address as an erroneous detail and applying the bequest to the only Harrison Avenue property the testatrix owned, using *falsa demonstratio non nocet* to preserve the intended disposition.


Arnheiter v. Arnheiter, 42 N.J. Super. 71, 125 A.2d 914 (Ch. Div. 1956)