## Facts

- Emerson I. Kehler died in April 1975 leaving a will that gave the residue to his brother, Ralph Kehler, and three sisters “and to the survivor or survivors of them, equally, share and share alike.”
- Ralph Kehler predeceased the testator, but Ralph’s daughter, Ethel Kehler Chupp, survived the testator.
- Other provisions of the will expressly addressed what would happen if certain beneficiaries predeceased the testator, but the residuary clause did not contain comparable substitution or lapse-directing language.
- The dispute concerned whether the residuary survivorship phrase showed a “contrary intent” sufficient to prevent application of Pennsylvania’s anti-lapse statute, 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2514(9).

## Issues

1. Whether the residuary clause’s phrase “and to the survivor or survivors of them” clearly manifested a contrary intent that would preclude application of Pennsylvania’s anti-lapse statute to a predeceased sibling’s share.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Orphans’ Court decree.
- The court held that the survivorship phrase in the residuary clause did not clearly express a contrary intent to defeat the anti-lapse statute.
- The court applied 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2514(9) and awarded Ethel Kehler Chupp the residuary share her father would have taken, per stirpes.

## Legal Principles

- Under 20 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2514(9), a devise or bequest to a testator’s brother or sister does not lapse if the beneficiary predeceases the testator but leaves issue surviving the testator, unless a contrary intent appears in the will.
- To defeat the anti-lapse statute, the will must show a clear contrary intent; ambiguous survivorship language is insufficient.
- In determining contrary intent, courts read the will as a whole and may consider the testator’s use of explicit lapse or substitution directions in other provisions when the disputed clause is comparatively silent.

## Conclusion

Because the residuary clause’s survivorship wording was not a clear statement that the testator intended to exclude a deceased sibling’s issue, Pennsylvania’s anti-lapse statute controlled, and the predeceased brother’s daughter took her father’s residuary share per stirpes.


Estate of Kehler, 488 Pa. 165, 411 A.2d 748 (Pa. 1980)