## Facts

- Archie L. Carroll and his wife, Dortha Carroll, were married for over 57 years and had no children.
- In 1978, each executed a separate will prepared by the same attorney.
- Archie’s will left his residuary estate to Dortha, but if she predeceased him, directed that the residue be liquidated and “equally divided between my nieces and nephews that are living as of the date of my death.”
- Dortha died in 1980; Archie died in 1986 with the 1978 will unchanged.
- Archie had blood nieces and nephews (children of his siblings); Dortha had nieces and nephews (children of her siblings) who were related to Archie only by marriage.
- After Archie’s death, Dortha’s nieces and nephews petitioned to construe Archie’s will to include them within “my nieces and nephews.”
- They offered extrinsic evidence (witness testimony and exhibits) that Archie allegedly intended to benefit Dortha’s family and used “nieces and nephews” in an inclusive, nontechnical manner.
- The trial court found the will language unambiguous, excluded the extrinsic evidence, and ordered distribution solely to Archie’s blood nieces and nephews.

## Issues

1. Whether the phrase “my nieces and nephews” in a will includes a testator’s spouse’s nieces and nephews (relatives by affinity) or only the children of the testator’s own siblings (relatives by consanguinity).
2. Whether extrinsic evidence of the testator’s relationships and statements is admissible to expand the class gift when the will’s language is facially clear.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that “my nieces and nephews” has a settled legal and ordinary meaning limited to the children of the testator’s own brothers and sisters.
- Because the will contained no language indicating a broader meaning, the phrase was unambiguous.
- The court upheld exclusion of extrinsic evidence offered to show a different intent.
- The residuary estate was properly distributed only to Archie’s blood nieces and nephews; Dortha’s nieces and nephews took nothing under the clause.

## Legal Principles

- A will’s words are construed in their legal, technical, and ordinary sense unless the instrument itself indicates a different meaning.
- Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary or enlarge clear testamentary language; it is considered only when an ambiguity exists.
- In the absence of modifying language, “niece” and “nephew” ordinarily refer to the immediate descendants of the testator’s own siblings and exclude relatives by marriage.
- Use of the possessive “my” (rather than “our”) supports a construction referring to the testator’s own kindred when the will otherwise provides no broader designation.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the ordinary legal meaning of “my nieces and nephews,” limiting the class to the testator’s blood nieces and nephews and rejecting extrinsic evidence offered to include the spouse’s nieces and nephews where the will’s language was unambiguous.


Estate of Carroll, 764 S.W.2d 736 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)