## Facts

- Alice Raymond executed a will dividing her residuary estate into two equal shares: one to “my brothers and sisters that survive me … or to the survivor or survivors thereof,” and one to “the brothers and sisters of my husband that survive me … or to the survivor or survivors thereof.”
- At Alice’s death, some of her siblings and some of her husband’s siblings had predeceased her, leaving children and, in some instances, grandchildren.
- Alice’s surviving brother petitioned for probate and argued that only siblings who survived Alice could take under the will.
- Descendants of the predeceased siblings argued they were entitled to take their parent’s or grandparent’s share, relying on the phrase “the survivor or survivors thereof” and Michigan antilapse law.

## Issues

1. Whether the will’s phrase “brothers and sisters that survive me … or to the survivor or survivors thereof” allowed descendants of predeceased siblings to take substitutionary shares.
2. Whether the will expressed a contrary intent sufficient to prevent application of Michigan’s antilapse statute to gifts for siblings who predeceased the testator.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the construction adopted by the probate court and the court of appeals.
- The Court held the residuary gifts were limited to the testator’s siblings (and the husband’s siblings) who survived the testator.
- The Court construed “the survivor or survivors thereof” to mean the surviving members of the sibling class, not the issue of deceased siblings.
- The Court held the will’s survivorship condition and redistribution language showed contrary intent that displaced the antilapse statute.
- Descendants of predeceased siblings took nothing under the residuary clause.

## Legal Principles

- A will is construed to effectuate the testator’s intent as expressed in the will’s language, applying words in their plain and ordinary meaning when unambiguous.
- Class-gift language conditioning a gift on beneficiaries “that survive me” limits takers to those alive at the testator’s death.
- A clause directing distribution to “the survivor or survivors” of a described class generally reallocates the share of a non-surviving class member among the surviving class members, absent language extending benefits to issue.
- An antilapse statute does not apply when the will’s terms show a contrary intent, including an express survivorship requirement for the named or described beneficiaries.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the will’s survivorship-based class gifts, holding that only siblings who survived the testator could inherit and that the will’s wording reflected a contrary intent barring substitutionary gifts to descendants under the antilapse statute.


Morse v. Sharkey, 438 Mich. 48, 764 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2009)