## Facts

- Letitia Bliss executed a will giving her estate in three equal shares: one-third to her niece Phyllis H. Schneider, one-third to her sister Margaret J. Sugarman, and one-third to her sister Amy E. Harrington.
- The will stated other siblings were intentionally omitted as “well taken care of” and contained no residuary clause.
- After execution, Bliss crossed out the entire clause giving Harrington one-third.
- Bliss also crossed out the “1/3” figures in the first two gifts and wrote “1/2” in pencil, leaving the words “one third” otherwise unchanged.
- The alterations were not re-executed or otherwise authenticated with testamentary formalities (no codicil or republication).
- The Probate Court allowed the will but treated Harrington’s clause as cancelled; it refused to give Schneider and Sugarman increased one-half shares, resulting in partial intestacy.
- Harrington, whose gift was eliminated by the decree, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a legatee whose gift is eliminated by a decree allowing a will with her provision obliterated is a “person aggrieved” entitled to appeal, despite not opposing probate in the Probate Court.
2. Whether the testatrix’s cancellation of Harrington’s clause was effective when it was part of an attempted but invalid substitution increasing the other beneficiaries’ shares (dependent relative revocation).

## Decision

- Harrington qualified as a “person aggrieved” and could appeal even without having appeared in opposition below.
- The decree was reversed.
- The cancellations were treated as a single transaction reflecting an intent to substitute a new dispositive scheme.
- Because the attempted substitutions (changing one-third to one-half shares) were not validly executed, the cancellation of Harrington’s legacy was conditional and did not become operative.
- The will was to be allowed as originally executed, restoring Harrington’s one-third share; the Probate Court could allow reasonable appellate costs from the estate.

## Legal Principles

- A party is a “person aggrieved” for probate-appeal purposes when a decree adversely affects that party’s pecuniary interest, even if the party did not oppose the decree in the lower court.
- Dependent relative revocation applies when a testator revokes a provision as part of a transaction intended to be effective only if a new disposition takes effect; if the new disposition fails for lack of testamentary formalities, the revocation is ineffective.
- In determining whether a revocation is conditional, courts consider the will’s structure and context, including whether the will omits certain heirs and lacks a residuary clause, making intestacy inconsistent with the apparent plan.

## Conclusion

The court held that Harrington could appeal as an aggrieved legatee and that Bliss’s attempted cancellation of Harrington’s gift was conditional on an invalid substitution; therefore, the original will, including Harrington’s one-third legacy, controlled.


Schneider v. Harrington, 320 Mass. 723, 71 N.E.2d 242 (Mass. 1947)