## Facts

- A testatrix executed a will creating a residuary trust for her daughter, with income payable to the daughter and discretionary principal invasion for her support; the trust terminated at the daughter’s death.
- On termination, the will directed distribution of remaining corpus to the daughter’s surviving children, per stirpes; the daughter later died without surviving children.
- If the daughter died without surviving children, the will attempted to pass the trust remainder to the testatrix’s two sisters.
- The will further stated that if either sister “predeceases me,” that sister’s share would pass to the other sister; and if the other sister “predeceases me,” her share would pass to three named grandchildren of that sister.
- The testatrix died first; one sister later died without children, and the other sister later died leaving a surviving child (and predeceased the life beneficiary).
- After the life beneficiary died childless, the trustee sought judicial instructions on distribution.
- The named grandchildren claimed “me” was a drafting mistake (intended to mean the life beneficiary), creating an ambiguity that permitted extrinsic evidence (including the scrivener’s testimony) and would award them the trust corpus.
- The surviving child of the sister argued the will was unambiguous, the condition (“predeceases me” meaning the testatrix) never occurred, and the remainder passed by intestacy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the surviving child, excluded the scrivener’s deposition, ordered distribution accordingly, and approved trustee fees from the trust; an intermediate appellate court reversed on ambiguity, and the Supreme Court of Missouri took the case.

## Issues

1. Whether a will provision using “predeceases me” was ambiguous such that extrinsic evidence could be used to substitute different words and change the beneficiaries of a trust remainder.
2. Whether scrivener testimony about an alleged drafting mistake is admissible to vary the meaning of an otherwise clear will.
3. Whether, if the will fails to effectively dispose of the trust remainder upon the life beneficiary’s death, the property passes by intestacy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court.
- The Court held the will’s language was clear and unambiguous; “me” referred to the testatrix, not the life beneficiary.
- Because there was no ambiguity, the court could not consider extrinsic evidence, including the scrivener’s deposition, to change the will’s terms.
- The conditional gifts to the grandchildren did not take effect because the sister did not predecease the testatrix.
- With the daughter dying childless and the will not otherwise disposing of the remainder under the actual sequence of deaths, the trust remainder passed by intestacy to the sister’s heir.
- The trustee’s costs and attorney’s fees payable from the trust estate were left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed from its text; extrinsic evidence is admissible only if the language is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning or a latent ambiguity is shown by extrinsic facts.
- Courts will not reform or rewrite an unambiguous will to correct an alleged drafting error based on extrinsic evidence of intent.
- Scrivener testimony cannot be used to contradict clear testamentary language.
- When clear will provisions result in failed or lapsed dispositions and the will does not dispose of the property under the facts as they occur, the undisposed property passes by intestacy.

## Conclusion

Missouri enforced the will as written, refused to treat an alleged drafting mistake as an ambiguity, excluded scrivener testimony, and held that the trust remainder not effectively disposed of on the life beneficiary’s childless death passed by intestacy.


Boone Cnty. Nat’l Bank v. Edson, 760 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. 1988)