Background
Leroy Dufault’s brief will stated that all his property would go to his three sisters—Rose Schott, Diane Dufault, and Patricia “Patty” Wunder—and added, “Divide it up any way you like!” Diane died five days after Leroy. Wunder, serving as personal representative of Leroy’s estate, initially proposed equal distributions but later sought to distribute the entire estate to herself based on an asserted agreement among the sisters concerning her care for Leroy.
After Diane’s estate successfully moved to reopen Leroy’s estate, the probate court ruled that the will unambiguously required a three-way distribution among the sisters, with Diane’s share passing to her estate. The court also ruled that departing from the will’s distribution scheme would require a will contest and awarded attorney fees to Diane’s estate.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the will was ambiguous as a matter of law because its language reasonably supported more than one plausible interpretation. The first sentence could identify the three sisters as the universe of beneficiaries, while the instruction to divide the property “any way you like” could authorize either the executors or the sisters themselves to determine how much each sister would receive. The court did not entirely foreclose an equal-shares interpretation but found it difficult to reconcile with the second sentence.
The court rejected Wunder’s challenge to the probate court’s ruling that avoiding the distribution scheme specified in the will would require a will contest. It also declined to address her claimed power-of-appointment ruling because the probate court had not actually ruled on that issue. Because the parties had not briefed how to resolve the will’s ambiguity, the court left that task for the probate court on remand. Reversal of the general judgment also reversed the supplemental attorney-fee judgment by operation of law.
Key Takeaways
- A will is ambiguous when its language reasonably supports more than one plausible interpretation.
- Courts must seek to give effect to every sentence, clause, and word of a will, including language granting apparent discretion over distribution.
- The Court of Appeals identified the ambiguity but did not decide the proper distribution, leaving that issue for further proceedings on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even a very short, informal will must be read as a whole. A clause naming beneficiaries does not necessarily establish equal shares when accompanying language appears to permit discretion in dividing the estate.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits. Its practical effect is to reopen the distribution question and eliminate the attorney-fee award tied to the reversed judgment.