## Facts

- Mary Bletcher, a widow with no children, suffered a stroke in 1956; her husband, Arthur D. Bletcher, died in February 1957.
- On April 21, 1957, Mary executed a will that provided:
  - “Second”: one-half of all her property to “my sisters, Kate Bouquet and Sue Lovett, my brothers, Frank Lichter and Emil Lichter … share and share alike.”
  - “Third”: $500 each to Janet and Barbara, nieces of her deceased husband.
  - “Fourth”: the “rest, residue and remainder” to Robert Bletcher, her late husband’s nephew.
- About a month later, Mary executed a first codicil distributing various items of tangible personal property among relatives.
- After the will and first codicil, two of the four named siblings in the one-half devise died: Emil (November 9, 1957) and Kate (March 16, 1958).
- With knowledge of those deaths, Mary executed a second codicil on May 28, 1958, giving the proceeds of a sale of certain property (a lake cottage) to the Lutheran Church and stating that, as modified, she “confirm[ed] and republish[ed]” her will and first codicil.
- Mary died on October 7, 1958, without remarrying and without issue. Her surviving closest blood relatives included Frank Lichter (brother) and Sue Lovett (sister).
- In probate, Robert Bletcher (as executor and as residuary beneficiary) contended that the gifts to Emil and Kate lapsed when they predeceased Mary, causing their portions of the one-half devise to pass under the residuary clause.
- Frank and Sue contended the one-half devise to “my sisters … my brothers” was a class gift, so the surviving siblings took the entire one-half share by survivorship within the class.
- The probate court ruled for Robert; the district court affirmed. Frank and Sue appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Did Mary’s will create a class gift of one-half of her estate to her brothers and sisters, even though the siblings were identified by name, so that only those siblings who survived Mary took that one-half share?
2. If the one-half devise was not a class gift, did the portions attributable to Emil and Kate lapse and pass to the residuary beneficiary, Robert Bletcher?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court judgment that had affirmed probate.
- The court held the will’s “Second” clause made a class gift to Mary’s brothers and sisters as a group.
- Because the gift was to a class distributable at Mary’s death, the class members were determined at her death; the surviving siblings took the full one-half share.
- The portions attributable to Emil and Kate did not pass to the residuary beneficiary.

## Legal Principles

- The goal in construing a will is to determine the testator’s intent from the will and codicils read as a whole; interpretive canons are aids and will not be used to defeat that intent.
- The main features of a class gift include (a) potential change in the number of eligible takers before the class closes and (b) survivorship among those who qualify when the class closes.
- As a general rule, a gift to beneficiaries by name suggests separate gifts (a tenancy in common) rather than a class gift, unless the instrument shows a different intent.
- Phrases such as “share and share alike” or “to be divided equally” do not, by themselves, resolve whether the gift is to individuals or to a class.
- A testator’s failure, in a later codicil that republishes the will, to add substitutionary provisions after learning that a beneficiary has died is not, by itself, decisive on whether the original gift was a class gift.
- When a will’s structure effectively divides the estate between the testator’s family and the deceased spouse’s family, that structure supports treating a devise to “brothers and sisters” as a group-based class gift, where the evidence shows an intent to treat each family as a unit.

## Conclusion

In *Lichter v. Bletcher*, the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted Mary Bletcher’s will as reflecting an intent to treat her own family and her late husband’s family as separate groups and held that the one-half devise to her “sisters” and “brothers,” though accompanied by individual names, was a class gift; therefore, the surviving siblings took the entire one-half share and the predeceased siblings’ shares did not fall into the residue for the husband’s nephew.


Lichter v. Bletcher, 123 N.W.2d 612 (1963)