ARNHEITER V. ARNHEITER 125 A.2d914 (1956)


Procedure: Executrix brought action to correct mistake in will.

Facts: Guterl died on December 31, 1953, leaving a last will and testament Her will directed the executrix to sell Guterl's undivided one-half interest of premises known as No 304 Harrison Avenue, Harrison, New Jersey,' and use the proceeds of sale to establish trusts for each of decedent's two nieces She did own or have any interest in 304 Harrison Avenue either at her death or at the time her will was executed But she did have such an interest in 317 Harrison Avenue P applied to the court to reform the street number in the will

Issue: May the court change the language of a decedent's will when an obvious mistake is detected after death?

Holding: The Superior Court, Chancery Division, Sullivan, J.S.C., held that where will directed executrix to sell the undivided one-half interest of testatrix in premises known as ‘No. 304 Harrison Avemue, Harrison, New Jersey,’ and use proceeds of sale to establish trusts for each of two nieces of testatrix, and testatrix did not own or have any interest in ‘No. 304 Harrison Avenue’ either at time of her death or at time will was executed, but did own an undivided one-half interest in ‘No. 317 Harrison Avenue,’ and that was the only property on Harrison Avenue that she had an interest in, Superior Court would not correct the mistake by changing the provision ‘No. 317 Harrison Avenue’ to ‘No. 304 Harrison Avenue,’ but the will as written would be construed as sufficient to identify the property passing thereunder as ‘No. 317 Harrison Avenue.’

Rule: A court has no power to correct or reform a will or change any of the language therein by substituting or adding words, but may disregard obviously mistaken references when necessary.

Analysis: "A court has no power to correct or reform a will or change any of the language therein by substituting or adding words." However, in construing wills, "falsa demonstration non nocet (mere erroneous description does not vitiate)." When construing the decedent's will in this case, because the decedent never owned the property at 304 Harrison Avenue, that reference is erroneous; if the mistaken reference to "304" is rejected, the will instructs the sale of her interest in the property on Harrison Avenue. Since the decedent owned only one property on Harrison Avenue, the reference directs the sale and disposition of that property. Furthermore, This case is obviously about the principle of falsa demonstratio non nocet. Court’s do not have the power to reform a will but they can subtract from it.