Estate of Ulrikson


Procedure: Proceeding was instituted in contest over construction of a residuary clause of will. The decision of the Hennepin County Probate Court that the antilapse statute was applicable was affirmed by the Three-Judge District Court, Hennepin County, and application for leave to appeal was granted.

Facts: Testator left a will bequeathing the residue of her estate to her siblings to share or to the surviving sibling should one predecease the testator. Both siblings predeceased the testator and the Appellants sought to prevent the Court from applying the anti-lapse statute to the will.

Issue: Does the anti-lapse statute apply such that the children of the brother who pre-deceased the testator take their father's share?

Holding: The Supreme Court, Yetka, J., held that the antilapse statute was applicable in the absence of clear intention to the contrary where residuary estate was devised to a brother and sister, “and in the event that either one of them shall predecease me, then to the other surviving brother or sister,” but in fact both brother and sister predeceased the testatrix, the brother leaving issue.
Affirmed.

Rule: If there are no survivors, words of survivorship will be ineffective and the anti-lapse statute will apply.

Analysis: There is no merit to the argument that Ulrikson intended to benefit all of her nieces and nephews equally. The will showed a preference for Ulrikson's brother and sister. In addition, there were bequests to nieces who were related by marriage, not blood. Will drafters typically strive to provide for every foreseeable situation, if not every conceivable situation. The court hypothesizes that Ulrikson did not consider that both of her younger siblings could predecease her, but Ulrikson clearly did not rule out the possibility that one of her younger siblings. would not survive her. It should not have been too much of a stretch to consider that, if one of them might die first, both of them could.