## Facts

- George and Lena Adele Gibbs executed substantially identical wills leaving 1% of each estate to “Robert J. Krause, now of 4708 North 46th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.”
- Earlier wills prepared for the Gibbses left a bequest to “Robert Krause” without a middle initial or address.
- Robert W. Krause was a decades-long friend of Mr. Gibbs and a former employee who maintained ongoing personal and work-related contact with the Gibbses.
- Witnesses familiar with the Gibbses testified that the testators spoke of remembering people connected to Mr. Gibbs’s workplace, including “Bob,” understood to be Robert W. Krause.
- Robert J. Krause lived at the stated address but was not personally known to the testators (aside from, at most, incidental contact).
- The probate court received extensive extrinsic evidence, found the middle initial and address were inserted by mistake, and awarded the bequests to Robert W. Krause.
- Robert J. Krause appealed, arguing the will’s identification was clear and should control.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may rely on extrinsic evidence to correct a mistaken identification of a will beneficiary when the will names an existing person with a specific middle initial and address.
2. Whether details such as middle initials and street addresses may be disregarded to carry out clearly demonstrated testamentary intent.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s judgment awarding the legacies to Robert W. Krause.
- The court held extrinsic evidence was properly admitted to show the testators’ intended beneficiary.
- The court treated the middle initial and address as identifying details susceptible to clerical error and permitted their disregard upon proof of mistake “to the highest degree of certainty.”

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary intent governs when it can be established consistent with law.
- Extrinsic evidence may be received to show that a mistake occurred in identifying details used to describe a beneficiary (e.g., middle initials and addresses).
- A court may disregard erroneous identifying details when the evidence establishes with the highest degree of certainty that a mistake was made and that the intended beneficiary is otherwise clearly shown.
- This corrective approach is limited to identification errors and does not authorize rewriting substantive dispositive terms (such as the nature or amount of the gift).

## Conclusion

The court permitted correction of mistaken identifying details in a will’s beneficiary description and, based on compelling extrinsic evidence, enforced the testators’ intent by awarding the legacies to the long-time friend and former employee rather than the unrelated individual who matched the literal middle initial and address.


In re Estate of Gibbs, 14 Wis. 2d 490, 111 N.W.2d 413 (Wis. 1961)