## Facts

- Henry T. Proestler died testate and, by his will, created a trust from his residuary estate.
- The trust directed the net income to be paid to Henry’s widow, Mathilde B. Proestler, for life.
- Henry’s will also granted Mathilde a testamentary power of appointment to dispose by will of $20,000 of the trust principal at her death; the balance of the trust was to pass to remaindermen named by Henry (including individuals and charities).
- Mathilde elected to take under Henry’s will and the trust was administered for many years.
- Mathilde later died leaving her own will. Her will devised “all the rest, residue and remainder of my Estate of whatever kind and wherever situated” to her nephew, Werner H. Grabbe, with a request that the income be used for the benefit of Mathilde’s sister during the sister’s lifetime.
- Mathilde’s will did not mention Henry’s trust, did not identify the $20,000, and did not refer to any “power of appointment” or similar language.
- After Mathilde’s will was admitted to probate, the successor trustee under Henry’s will sought court instructions on whether the $20,000 subject to Mathilde’s power passed under Mathilde’s residuary clause to Grabbe or instead passed to Henry’s named devisees under Henry’s default distribution.
- Grabbe offered oral testimony to show Mathilde intended her will to dispose of the $20,000 to him.
- The trial court excluded the oral testimony and held Mathilde did not exercise the power; the $20,000 therefore passed under Henry’s will with the rest of the trust property. Grabbe appealed.

## Issues

1. Does a residuary clause giving “all the rest, residue and remainder of my Estate” to the residuary beneficiary exercise a special testamentary power of appointment over property held in another person’s trust when the will does not refer to the power or the appointive property?
2. When the donee’s will is clear on its face and contains no reference to the power, is extrinsic (oral) evidence admissible to prove the donee intended to exercise the power?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed.
- Mathilde’s will did not exercise the testamentary power of appointment over the $20,000 in Henry’s trust.
- The trial court properly excluded oral testimony offered to show Mathilde’s alleged intent because the will was unambiguous and the offered evidence would alter the will’s legal effect.
- The $20,000 was to be distributed under Henry’s will to Henry’s designated devisees, as if the power of appointment had not been granted.

## Legal Principles

- Property subject to a special (limited) testamentary power of appointment is not part of the donee’s own estate; it passes under the donor’s instrument unless the donee validly exercises the power.
- A general residuary disposition of “my estate” does not, by itself, exercise a special testamentary power of appointment over property not owned by the testator, absent language in the will that refers to the power, identifies the appointive property, or otherwise shows an intent to exercise the power from the will’s terms.
- When a will is clear and unambiguous, the testator’s intent must be determined from the instrument itself, and parol evidence of subjective intent is not admissible to vary, add to, or contradict the will’s language.

## Conclusion

The court held that Mathilde Proestler’s residuary gift of “my Estate” to her nephew did not exercise her special testamentary power to appoint $20,000 from Henry Proestler’s trust because her will did not refer to the power or the trust property, and extrinsic oral testimony of her intent was properly excluded; accordingly, the $20,000 passed under Henry’s will to his named beneficiaries.


In re Proestler's Will, 232 Iowa 640, 5 N.W.2d 922 (1942)