## Facts

- William H. White, Jr. executed a will (1973) giving all his property to his wife, Katherine M. White.
- The will named no contingent beneficiary and contained no residuary clause.
- Katherine predeceased the testator (1993); White died later (1995) without changing the will.
- The Probate Court treated the estate as not disposed of by will after Katherine’s death and ordered distribution by intestacy to White’s statutory heirs (cousins).
- Katherine’s sisters (Flannery and Moran) claimed White intended them to take his property, citing a close relationship and alleged statements that his home and belongings would be theirs.
- The sisters sought declaratory relief and reformation; the heirs moved to dismiss, treated by agreement as a motion for summary judgment.
- The Probate Court granted summary judgment to the heirs, finding the will unambiguous and excluding extrinsic evidence of intent.

## Issues

1. Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to construe an unambiguous will to reflect alleged testamentary intent not expressed in the document.
2. Whether Massachusetts should allow equitable reformation of a duly executed, unambiguous will based on alleged mistake or unexpressed intent.
3. Whether, when a sole beneficiary predeceases the testator and the will lacks an alternate disposition, the property passes by intestacy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed summary judgment for the heirs.
- The court declined to overrule the plain meaning rule barring extrinsic evidence to interpret an unambiguous will.
- The court declined to recognize reformation of wills based on extrinsic evidence of alleged intent or mistake.
- Because the will made no alternate gift if Katherine predeceased the testator, the estate passed by intestacy to the testator’s statutory heirs.

## Legal Principles

- When a will is unambiguous on its face, testamentary intent is determined from the instrument’s language, and extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary or supplement that disposition.
- Massachusetts does not permit equitable reformation of a duly executed will to add or change beneficiaries based on alleged intent not expressed in the will.
- If a will fails to dispose of property due to a lapsed devise and contains no alternate or residuary disposition, the undisposed property passes by intestacy.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when, even accepting the proffered extrinsic intent evidence, existing wills doctrines make the claim legally insufficient.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts reaffirmed that courts will not use extrinsic evidence to alter the meaning of an unambiguous will or to reform it to match alleged unexpressed intent; when a sole beneficiary predeceases the testator and no alternative disposition exists, the estate is distributed under intestacy.


Flannery v. McNamara, 738 N.E.2d 739 (Mass. 2000)