## Facts

- Eunice Carpenter executed a will with a residuary clause naming four primary beneficiaries: three relatives of her late husband (Ernest L. Carpenter, Bryan A. Carpenter, and Orilla Carpenter Pinkston) and her brother (Paul L. Chaudoin).
- The will provided that if any of the three husband-side beneficiaries predeceased Eunice, that beneficiary’s share would “lapse” and pass to “the surviving beneficiaries of the FOUR (4) beneficiaries above-named.”
- The will separately provided that if Chaudoin predeceased Eunice, his share would not lapse but would pass to his five children.
- All four primary beneficiaries died before Eunice: Ernest (1991), Orilla (1996), Chaudoin (1997), and Bryan (1998).
- After Eunice’s death, co-executor C. J. Carpenter asserted that the residuary clause was ambiguous and that the shares should pass through the estates/heirs of the deceased primary beneficiaries, resulting in the husband-side heirs taking three-fourths and the Chaudoin children taking one-fourth.
- Co-executor Oras Miller argued the will’s language was unambiguous and, properly construed, resulted in the Chaudoin children taking the entire residuary estate.
- The probate court ruled the will was unambiguous and that the residue was devised to Chaudoin’s five children; C. J. Carpenter appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the residuary clause’s use of “lapse” and the phrase “surviving beneficiaries of the FOUR (4) beneficiaries above-named” was ambiguous.
2. If unambiguous, whether the clause required that the deceased husband-side beneficiaries’ residuary shares fail and pass to the remaining residuary beneficiaries (and ultimately to Chaudoin’s children), rather than to the deceased beneficiaries’ heirs.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held the residuary clause was not ambiguous, so extrinsic evidence was not considered.
- The court gave “lapse” its technical probate meaning: the gift fails and does not pass to the deceased devisee’s heirs.
- The court concluded the lapsed shares of the three husband-side beneficiaries passed to the remaining residuary beneficiaries, and because Chaudoin’s share was preserved for his children, the entire residue went to Chaudoin’s five children.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of probate matters is de novo, but factual findings are reversed only if clearly erroneous.
- The testator’s intent controls and is determined from the four corners of the will when the language is unambiguous.
- Extrinsic evidence of intent is admissible only when the will is ambiguous (i.e., the language is uncertain in meaning).
- “Lapse” is a technical term meaning the devise fails; a lapsed residuary gift passes to other residuary beneficiaries in proportion to their interests rather than to the lapsed beneficiary’s heirs, unless the will provides otherwise.
- A clause directing lapsed shares to “surviving beneficiaries” may be applied according to its plain reference to survivors among the named residuary beneficiaries.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the residuary clause as written, holding it unambiguous and applying the technical meaning of “lapse” to prevent the husband-side beneficiaries’ shares from passing to their heirs, which resulted in Chaudoin’s five children taking the entire residuary estate.


Carpenter v. Miller, 26 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000)