## Facts

- Anna B. Kerner died, leaving two daughters, Joanne Romaniello and Barbara Gianni, and one granddaughter, Donna Romaniello (Joanne’s daughter).
- Kerner’s will expressly disinherited Gianni.
- Article II of the will gave all of Kerner’s “furnishings and personal property” to Donna.
- Article III contained a residuary clause giving all of Kerner’s property (except what was otherwise specifically disposed of in the will) to Joanne, with a gift over to Donna if Joanne did not survive Kerner.
- At death, Kerner’s estate consisted of tangible personal property in her home and approximately $102,000 in intangible financial assets (including items such as stocks and bank accounts).
- Donna filed a petition for construction of the will, arguing that “personal property” in Article II included the intangible financial assets as well as the household items.
- The probate court denied Donna’s petition, construing Article II as limited to tangible personal property and holding that the intangible assets passed to Joanne under the residuary clause.
- Donna appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the devise of “furnishings and personal property” in Article II included intangible financial assets, or instead referred only to tangible household-type items, leaving the intangible assets to pass under the residuary clause in Article III.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s construction of the will.
- The court held that, in context, “furnishings and personal property” referred to tangible personal property, not intangible financial assets.
- The court ruled that Kerner’s intangible financial assets passed to Joanne under Article III’s residuary clause.

## Legal Principles

- The primary rule of will construction is to carry out the testator’s intent as shown by the will read as a whole.
- Courts seek a construction that gives effect to all provisions of the will and avoids an interpretation that makes a residuary clause meaningless.
- The canon of ejusdem generis can limit a general term that follows a specific term; because “furnishings” refers to tangible household items, “personal property” was read in that same class.
- Express inclusion or exclusion in a will may inform intent; the will expressly disinherited Gianni, and the absence of an express disinheritance of Joanne supported the conclusion that Kerner intended Joanne to receive the substantial remainder of the estate.
- If provisions are in conflict and cannot reasonably be reconciled, a later provision may be treated as the more recent expression of intent, supporting effect for a later residuary clause rather than allowing an earlier general phrase to consume it.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the probate court’s order construing Kerner’s will: Article II’s gift of “furnishings and personal property” gave Donna only tangible household-type property, while Kerner’s approximately $102,000 in intangible financial assets passed to Joanne under the residuary clause in Article III.


Romaniello v. Romaniello, 760 So. 2d 1083 (2000)