## Facts

- George Roberts died in 1981 survived by seven children; a deceased son left one grandchild.
- Roberts’s estate included real property (about $425,000), tangible personal property (about $2,500), and intangible personal property (about $324,000).
- Roberts’s will gave “personal property” to his surviving children in equal shares.
- The will placed Roberts’s real property in a testamentary trust for his daughter, Miriam Eleanor Emmert, for life, with later transfer to an existing inter vivos trust.
- The will’s residuary clause transferred the remainder of the estate to the inter vivos trust, which paid income to surviving children for life and distributed principal to grandchildren after the last child’s death.
- Emmert, as personal representative, sought a declaration that “personal property” was ambiguous and should be limited to tangible items so that intangible assets would pass under the residuary clause into the inter vivos trust.
- The trial court found ambiguity, admitted extrinsic evidence, and limited “personal property” to tangibles; an intermediate appellate court reversed, treating “personal property” as unambiguous and inclusive of intangibles.

## Issues

1. Whether “personal property” in the will was ambiguous, permitting extrinsic evidence to limit the gift to tangible personalty.
2. If unambiguous, whether “personal property” must be given its ordinary legal meaning, including intangible assets, even if that alters the will’s perceived overall plan.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the intermediate appellate court.
- The court held that “personal property,” as used in the will, was unambiguous and included both tangible and intangible personalty.
- Because there was no patent or latent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence of the testator’s intent was inadmissible to narrow the term.
- The intangible personal property passed outright to the surviving children under the “personal property” clause rather than through the residuary clause to the inter vivos trust.

## Legal Principles

- A testator’s intent is determined primarily from the will’s text, read as a whole; clear terms are given their ordinary legal meaning.
- Extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret a will only when a genuine ambiguity exists; it may not be used to contradict, add to, or vary unambiguous language.
- In Maryland, “personal property” is a settled term of art generally meaning all property other than real property, including intangible property such as securities and other choses in action.
- The size of a bequest, perceived unfairness, or an asserted “overall plan” cannot create ambiguity or justify rewriting a clear dispositive provision.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the will’s unqualified gift of “personal property” according to its established legal meaning, concluding that the term included intangible assets and that extrinsic evidence could not be used to restrict the gift to tangible items.


Emmert v. Hearn, 309 Md. 19, 522 A.2d 377 (Md. 1987)