In re Estate of Gibbs 14 Wis. 490, 111 N.W.2d 413 (1961)
Robert Krause worked at a steel factory for Gibbs. The two maintained a lifelong friendship that extended into Gibbs' retirement. Gibbs made a number of wills throughout his life. The early ones listed Robert Krause as a beneficiary. The later ones (including the last one) listed Robert J. Krause as a beneficiary. o Robert Krause's middle initial was not 'J'! o The will listed Robert J. Krause's address, but that wasn't where Robert Krause lived. That was where someone else named 'Robert J. Krause' lived. There was no ambiguity. There was plain language (aka plain meaning) which could only be interpreted one way. Probably the lawyer made a mistake looking up the address in the phone book. Gibbs died. Robert J. Krause stepped forward as a beneficiary. Robert Krause objected, claiming that he was the intended beneficiary of the bequest. o Robert J. Krause had no relation to Gibbs. Although maybe he drove Gibbs' wife around in a taxi once. The Probate Court found for Robert Krause. Robert J. Krause appealed. o The Probate Court found that Gibbs intended to give the $$$ to Robert Krause. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. o In general, unless there is ambiguity in the text of the will, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of determining intent. o However, the Court found that details of identification which are highly susceptible to mistake (like middle initials) should not be accorded such sanctity as to frustrate an otherwise clearly demonstrable intent. Once the Court threw out all the details (like the middle initial), then all of a sudden "Robert Krause" became ambiguous, which allowed the
Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0
o
Court to look at extrinsic evidence. It was clear that the $$$ was intended to go to Robert Krause, not Robert J. Krause, so the Court decided to overlook the mistake. The Wisconsin Supreme Court identified two classes of ambiguity: Where two+ people match the description in the will. Where no one matches the description in the will. Neither of these ambiguities were present in Gibbs' will, at least not until the Court threw out some of the identifying information. o It's pretty clear that the Court was really stretching to make sure the money went to the right person.