## Facts

- Marguerite S. Condon executed a will giving specific charitable bequests and providing a $10,000 gift to be shared among beneficiaries in her extended family; her son, Robert J. Condon, was named executor and residuary beneficiary.
- The will included a $10,000 bequest to Mary Virginia Maloney and Charles (family members), with a survivorship direction that if one predeceased the testator, the survivor would take the deceased beneficiary’s share.
- Charles predeceased Marguerite.
- After Charles’s death but before her own, Marguerite wrote Mary a $5,000 check with the memo notation “will payment.”
- After Marguerite died, Robert treated the $5,000 check as satisfaction (full or partial) of Mary’s testamentary entitlement and proposed distributing only an additional $5,000 to Mary.
- Mary objected in probate, asserting the $5,000 was a lifetime gift and did not reduce the $10,000 bequest.
- The probate court ruled for Mary, ordering payment of the full $10,000 under the will; Robert appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a testator’s inter vivos payment to a will beneficiary, evidenced only by a check memo reading “will payment,” constitutes a satisfaction (ademption by satisfaction) that reduces the beneficiary’s testamentary bequest.
2. Whether ambiguous extrinsic evidence of intent is sufficient to credit a lifetime transfer against a specific bequest, particularly where the will contains no satisfaction clause or written declaration of satisfaction.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court.
- The court held the $5,000 check did not satisfy or reduce Mary’s $10,000 testamentary bequest.
- Mary was entitled to the full $10,000 distribution under the will, without offset for the $5,000 lifetime payment.

## Legal Principles

- Will construction is governed by the testator’s intent, primarily as expressed in the will.
- A lifetime transfer is not treated as satisfaction of a testamentary gift absent clear, unequivocal evidence the testator intended the transfer to substitute for the bequest.
- Ambiguity is resolved against finding satisfaction; equivocal proof (such as a memo notation) is insufficient without supporting language in the will, a codicil, or another clear written declaration.
- Interpretations that undermine an express survivorship direction in a specific bequest are disfavored when the will’s text indicates the survivor should take the entire gift.

## Conclusion

The court refused to reduce a beneficiary’s $10,000 bequest based solely on a $5,000 check marked “will payment,” concluding that satisfaction requires clear proof of intent not present in the will or other writings; the beneficiary therefore received the full testamentary amount.


In re Estate of Condon, 715 N.W.2d 770 (Iowa Ct. App. 2006)