## Facts

- A District of Columbia resident executed a will in March 1986 while hospitalized and died about one month later.
- The will directed payment of debts, expenses, taxes, and several cash legacies, then stated that remaining assets should be distributed “to the residual legatee as stipulated in paragraph EIGHTH.”
- Paragraph Eight did not identify any residuary beneficiary; it only nominated Richard L. Knupp (a longtime friend) as executor and waived bond.
- The drafting attorney submitted an affidavit stating the testator instructed him to name Knupp as residuary beneficiary, but the attorney forgot to include that clause.
- Evidence indicated two earlier wills had provided Knupp substantial benefits.
- Under D.C. law, if a will does not dispose of the residuary estate, the residue escheats to the District of Columbia.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may reform a will to insert an omitted residuary beneficiary based on extrinsic evidence of the testator’s intent when the will contains no language identifying that beneficiary.
2. Whether the reference to a “residual legatee” created an ambiguity that permits use of extrinsic evidence to supply the missing beneficiary designation.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment ordering escheat of the residuary estate to the District of Columbia.
- The court held that extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret ambiguous language in a will, but not to add a dispositive provision or beneficiary absent from the instrument.
- Because the will contained no language from which the identity of any residuary legatee could be inferred, the court lacked authority to insert Knupp’s name.
- With no valid testamentary disposition of the residue, the statutory escheat rule governed.

## Legal Principles

- The testator’s intent controls will construction, but it must be derived primarily from the will’s text.
- Extrinsic evidence is admissible to clarify or interpret ambiguous testamentary language, not to supply terms or beneficiaries entirely missing from the will.
- A court may not “reform” a will by inserting an omitted legatee based on parol evidence of mistake.
- When a will fails to dispose of the residuary estate and no residuary taker can be determined from the instrument, the residue passes by escheat under applicable statute.

## Conclusion

Because the will did not name a residuary beneficiary and contained no text permitting identification of one, the court declined to add an omitted beneficiary based on extrinsic evidence and allowed the residuary estate to escheat to the District of Columbia.


Knupp v. District of Columbia, 578 A.2d 702 (D.C. 1990)