The doctrine of probable intent guides courts in construction of a will or trust. It is crucial to use clear, unambiguous language when creating your estate plan. The terms of your will or trust should provide specific instructions on how your estate will be administered. Without precise directions, the possibility of a contest or dispute over the document remains open. So, what happens in the case of ambiguous estate planning documents? How does the court decide how to interpret vague direction in a will or trust?
The Doctrine of Probable Intent in New Jersey
Codified in New Jersey Statute 3B:3-33 is the doctrine of probable intent. The objective under this doctrine is for courts to determine the probable intentions of the testator. For example, some testators may indicate a focus on avoiding taxes or gifting to charity, while others may want to be specific about what their beneficiaries inherit or ensure how their debts are paid for. In any case, in the presence of ambiguity, the court is tasked with discerning the meaning of the document and giving legal effect to its terms.
This process is known as construction. The Doctrine of Probable Intent guides courts in construction of a will or trust.
When and how do Courts apply the Doctrine of Probable Intent?
There are actually only limited circumstances which call for this doctrine. First of all, because Probable Intent deals with the disposition in a will or trust, this doctrine is only used during estate is administration after the Testator has passed away. Think about it, if the testator was still alive, one could simply ask them about their intentions rather than apply this doctrine in attempts to ascertain them. Additionally, the terms in the documents must be unclear or vague, such as to warrant confusion. In cases where the testator’s dispositions are clearly directed on the face of their documents, courts may not use probable intent.
Instead, Courts typically apply the doctrine of probable intent in cases of Will Contests. Competing beneficiaries may contest a will and its provisions that bequest money or property to another party. When the language in these provisions is vague one of the parties may bring legal action in attempt to recover said money or property. In these cases, courts are permitted to use probable intent to reform wills by searching out the likely meaning intended by the words or phrases in the document.
The judicial inquiry here focuses on the subjective intent of the testator. The court may begin by analyzing the language and phrasing in the document. Next, the court can examine extrinsic evidence such as prior wills, letters, or the communicated wishes and intentions of the testator before they passed. The court can also consider circumstantial evidence of the document’s execution such as evidence regarding the testator’s relationships with the parties in the dispute. The Court is then obliged to examine and resolve the dispute from the perspective of the testator.
An Example of The Doctrine of Probable Intent: Matter of Ventre
An example of the Probable Intent Doctrine in practice took place in the recent New Jersey case of the Matter of Ventre.
The testator in this case was Francesco Ventre. Francesco’s son, Anthony and Anthony’s ex-wife Carol owed Francesco a debt prior to his passing. Francesco loaned his son the money to purchase a home with Carol, who was also on the deed. Both parties agreed to pay this debt with interest. However, no payments to Francesco were ever made while he was living. After Francesco’s death, the debt became the subject of dispute.
In his Will, Francesco stated that he wished the debt to be discharged, forgiving Anthony for his obligations. Carol and Anthony were still married at this time. Eventually, Francesco passed away and Anthony and Carol entered divorce proceedings. Anthony brought action arguing that his father clearly wished him to be released from the debt, but the same did not apply to Carol.
Carol took the position that the terms of the will relieved her of the debt. Anthony, on the other hand, believed that because his father was aware of the marital issues leading to his and Carol’s divorce, he wouldn’t want Carol to benefit from the Will. Carol was not named in the provision of the will which forgave the debt. Because it was unclear from the face of the will whether Francesco intended for Carol’s debt to be forgiven, the court applied the doctrine of probable intent to resolve the issue.
The court concluded that there was no direct or extrinsic evidence supporting Anthony’s contention that Francesco intended for Carol to remain liable for the debt. The court held that the fact that forgiving Carol from the debt was consistent with the fact that Francesco never asked for payment from either Carol or Anthony before he passed away.
Francesco’s attorney also provided extrinsic evidence that, upon drafting the will, it was his understanding that Carol was to be forgiven from the debt just like Anthony. The court considered how Carol was not mentioned separately in Francesco’s conversations with his attorney. The court implied that Carol would have likely been distinguished if she was to remain responsible for the debt while Anthony was forgiven. Francesco’s attorney also provided evidence that Francesco intended for his “entire debt” to be forgiven.
After examining this evidence, the New Jersey Appellate Court discerned Francesco’s probable intention as forgiving his entire debt, regardless of the martial status between Carol and his son Anthony.
Conclusion
As a testator, courts will be obliged to determine your probable overarching goals. However, this will not happen until after you pass, and contention arises regarding your estate. Therefore, to ensure your dispositions will go exactly as you intend, be sure to use clear language in your documents as to alleviate any need for this doctrine. If you have any more questions about how to make sure your language in your will or trust is clear, or about the Probable Intent Doctrine in New Jersey, please contact Ward, Shindle & Hall.
