Background
Robert Marchlewicz, a former Delaware state senator, died on March 30, 2024, leaving no children, siblings, or living parents. He had executed a Last Will and Testament on November 17, 2020, using a printed form with handwritten fill-ins, to which he later added margin entries in 2021 and 2023. His longtime administrative assistant and confidant, Henriestine “Trudi” Scheurer, was named executrix and was unaware of her nomination until 2023.
When the Will was submitted for probate in September 2024, the Register of Wills admitted the original Will but identified several defects: a 2023 codicil lacked the required two witness signatures; the Will contained no residuary clause; and ambiguous contingency language in the Fourth Provision raised a question about whether nonparty Amena Lewis was a beneficiary. The Register issued letters testamentary to Scheurer but directed her to obtain a court order identifying the estate’s beneficiaries.
Scheurer filed a petition for instructions on September 30, 2025. Following an evidentiary hearing on April 2, 2026, and post-hearing filings confirming notice to all interested parties, the Magistrate in Chancery took the matter under advisement and issued this final letter decision on June 16, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court construed each testamentary provision in turn. Under the Second Provision, because no written memorandum directing distribution of tangible personal property was produced, Scheurer takes that property as the named default beneficiary. Under the Third Provision, the court confirmed cash bequests of $100,000 to the Jeanne Jugan Residence, and $50,000 each to Ava and Arielle Lewis. However, the two vehicles Marchlewicz had attempted to devise to cousins Valerie Elliot and John Dudziec had been sold before his death, triggering ademption — the bequests are revoked by operation of law, and those cousins are no longer will beneficiaries. The 2021 margin entry purporting to add checking accounts to Scheurer’s bequest was also found invalid for lack of witness signatures.
Under the Fourth Provision, the court resolved the Register’s concern about Amena Lewis by noting that the ambiguous second sentence — providing an alternative devise to Ava and Arielle Lewis if Amena Lewis predeceased the testator — was simply never triggered, because Amena Lewis survived Marchlewicz. The court accordingly enforced the first sentence as written, devising two real properties (209 E. Market Street, Lewes and 508 Harlan Blvd., Unit 210, Wilmington) to Scheurer outright. As to the missing residuary clause, the court confirmed that any residuary assets will pass under Delaware’s intestacy statute, though it declined to rule on the identity of heirs or the amount of residue as those issues were not before it.
The court identified the will’s beneficiaries as: Scheurer (tangible personal property, Sycamore Street LLC interest, WSFS checking account, and two real properties); the Jeanne Jugan Residence ($100,000); Ava Lewis ($50,000); Arielle Lewis ($50,000); and Marchlewicz’s intestate heirs as to any residue.
Key Takeaways
- Unwitnessed handwritten additions to a Delaware will — including margin entries and codicils — are invalid and will not be given effect, regardless of whether the base will is properly executed.
- Ademption extinguishes a specific bequest when the devised property no longer exists in the estate at death; the named beneficiary loses their interest entirely unless the will creates an alternate interest in them.
- Contingency language in a will need not be construed when the triggering condition never occurred — a court will simply enforce the primary operative language as written.
- A will without a residuary clause leaves any remaining estate assets to pass by intestacy, underscoring the practical importance of including one.
Why It Matters
This decision is a practical reminder that informal testamentary amendments — margin notes, unwitnessed codicils, crossed-out entries — carry real legal risk. Even a testator who diligently updates a will over several years may find those updates void if the formal execution requirements of two witnesses are not met each time. Estate planners counseling clients who use form wills should stress that any change, however minor, requires the same formalities as the original instrument.
The ademption ruling also illustrates a common trap in estate planning: a will that specifically devises property the testator later sells or transfers during life simply fails as to that gift, with no fallback unless the will provides one. Practitioners drafting or reviewing wills with specific personal-property bequests — particularly vehicles or other depreciating assets likely to be replaced — should consider substitution or general-bequest language to avoid leaving intended beneficiaries empty-handed.