## Facts

- Loreta Dutcher (the decedent) executed a do-it-yourself will that the court described as poorly written, ambiguous, and internally contradictory.
- Stuart Dutcher, Loreta’s only child, had children (Loreta’s grandchildren) who were potential beneficiaries under the will.
- The will contained conflicting dispositive provisions:
  - In “Paragraph Thirdly,” Loreta appeared to leave her estate to Stuart’s children (her grandchildren).
  - In “Paragraph Sixthly,” Loreta appeared instead to leave her estate to Stuart.
- After Loreta’s death, Stuart—acting as personal representative of Loreta’s estate—filed a petition in the probate court seeking a determination of the proper beneficiaries.
- The grandchildren were represented in the proceeding by a guardian ad litem.
- At the hearing, witnesses testified about Loreta’s relationship with Stuart and her intent, stating that Loreta intended her property to go to Stuart, and to Stuart’s children only if Stuart predeceased her.
- The trial court focused on the conflict between Paragraph Thirdly and Paragraph Sixthly and ruled that the grandchildren were the beneficiaries of Loreta’s estate; the court later denied Stuart’s motion for rehearing.
- Stuart appealed the determination of beneficiaries to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. When a will is ambiguous and contains conflicting dispositive provisions, may the court consider extrinsic evidence of the testatrix’s intent to determine whether the son or the grandchildren are the intended principal beneficiaries?
2. If conflicting clauses cannot reasonably be reconciled, should the later clause be given effect as the final expression of testamentary intent when consistent with the evidence of intent?

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling that the grandchildren were the beneficiaries.
- The appellate court concluded the will should be construed to make Stuart Dutcher the principal beneficiary.
- The court treated the grandchildren’s interest as contingent—taking effect only if Stuart predeceased Loreta.
- The case was remanded for administration consistent with that construction.

## Legal Principles

- The purpose of will construction is to determine and carry out the testator’s intent, so long as it is lawful.
- When a will’s language is ambiguous or conflicting, the court may consider extrinsic evidence of the circumstances and the testator’s expressed intent to resolve the ambiguity (rather than selecting one clause without justification).
- Courts should read the will as a whole and try to give effect to all provisions if a reasonable reconciliation is possible.
- If two provisions are irreconcilable, the later provision may control as the final expression of intent, especially where it aligns with competent evidence showing what the testator meant.
- Florida law disfavors allowing uncertainty to defeat a reasonable testamentary disposition where a construction can give effect to a coherent plan.

## Conclusion

Because Loreta Dutcher’s do-it-yourself will contained irreconcilable gifts pointing both to her grandchildren and to her son, the appellate court approved the use of extrinsic evidence to determine intent and applied the rule that a later conflicting clause can prevail when consistent with that intent, reversing the probate court and holding that Stuart Dutcher was the primary beneficiary, with the grandchildren taking only if he predeceased the testatrix.


Dutcher v. Estate of Dutcher, 437 So. 2d 788 (1983)