X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ESTATE OF CLAIRE PEARCE a/k/a CLAIRE ANTOINETTE PEARCE, Deceased (19-2735/B) — The e-filed documents listed by NYSCEF document numbers 36-39, 41-42, 44-47, and 50 were read in deciding the instant motion. Preliminary Statement In this contested miscellaneous proceeding, Holly Pearce (Petitioner), as Co-Executor of the estate of Claire Pearce a/k/a Claire Antoinette Pearce (Testator), seeks construction of a latent ambiguity in Article SECOND of Decedent’s Last Will and Testament dated July 9, 2001 (Will). Michael Anthony Pearce (Objectant), also a Co-Executor of the estate, filed objections. Petitioner now moves for summary judgment and Objectant cross-moves for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion is granted and the cross-motion is denied. Background The decedent died on June 12, 2019, survived by two children, the Petitioner and the Objectant. The decedent’s Will was admitted to probate on May 26, 2020, and Letters Testamentary issued to Petitioner and Objectant, as Co-Executors. In the prior probate proceeding, the parties stipulated to resolving a dispute raised by Objectant by commencing this construction proceeding. The Testator’s estate includes, inter alia, a 4-story, 2-family brownstone (the Brownstone) and an appurtenant lot containing a backyard, private garden, parking pad and driveway (the Lot) located in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, where the Testator resided at the time of her death. At issue is Article SECOND of the Will which provides in pertinent part as follows: “I give the following real property to my daughter, HOLLY LUCIA PEARCE (a/k/a Holly Lester) if she survives me: My primary residence at the time of my death.” (Emphasis in original.) The Will further bequeathed all tangible personal property to Petitioner and the residuary estate to Petitioner and Objectant in equal shares. The parties inform that the residuary estate includes three parcels of real property located upstate and in North Carolina. The Parties’ Contentions Petitioner seeks construction of the term “[m]y primary residence” in Article SECOND of Testator’s Will to mean the Brownstone and Lot together. The dispute as to the meaning of that term arises from Objectant’s contention that the Brownstone and Lot are assigned two separate lot numbers on the Tax map for Kings County, and bear two separate street addresses.1 Thus, Objectant argues, the Testator’s “primary residence” means the Brownstone only and the Lot belongs in the residuary estate. Petitioner counters that by the term “[m]y primary residence,” the Testator could only have meant both the Brownstone and Lot together, as she always considered them to be one property that was her residence. In support of her motion, Petitioner asserts that for over 50 years, the Testator resided in the Brownstone, which is connected to the Lot containing a backyard, private garden, parking pad and driveway that the Testator actively used as part and parcel of her residence. Petitioner submits copies of a recorded deed dated March 21, 1968, when the Testator and her then spouse purchased the property, and a subsequent deed dated July 14, 1974, when the property was transferred to the Testator as sole owner. The deeds bear both tax lot numbers assigned to the Brownstone and Lot and recite a property description that encompasses both lots. Also submitted are copies of mortgages on the property taken in 1990 and 1994, which secured the loans with both tax lots as one property being mortgaged. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts, there is overwhelming evidence that the Testator considered the Brownstone and Lot to be one property that was her residence. Objectant counters that the manner in which the Testator used the Lot has no bearing on whether she considered the Lot to be part of her residence. Objectant asserts that the Brownstone has its own backyard and the Lot itself is not an extension of the Brownstone’s backyard. Rather, the two tax lots are separate properties and the only way to legally merge the two is with the permission of the City of New York, which the Testator never sought. Objectant further argues that the two lots are taxed separately, and that the Testator claimed a STAR tax abatement on the Brownstone only as her “primary residence.” Moreover, when the Testator sought permission from the City to construct a parking pad in the Lot, she made the application using the Lot’s street address, not the Brownstone’s. Discussion The court’s primary function in any will construction proceeding is to ascertain and effectuate the testator’s intent. (Matter of Bernstein, 40 AD3d 1086, 1087 (2007); Matter of Gustafson, 74 NY2d 448, 451 [1989]). Intent is discerned by a reading of the will as a whole, and where its language is “clear and unmistakable so as to convey only one meaning,” no recourse to external evidence is permitted in discerning the testator’s intent. (Matter of Hastings, 184 AD2d 849, 850 [3d Dept 1992]). However, where a will provision contains a latent ambiguity, the court may consider extrinsic evidence to discern the testator’s intent. (In re Estate of Luposello, 225 AD2d 551, 552 [2d Dept 1996]). “Typically, a latent ambiguity arises where the language found in the will is clear and intelligible and suggests but a single meaning, but some extrinsic fact outside of the instrument creates a necessity for interpretation or a choice between two or more possible meanings.” (11 Warren’s Heaton on Surrogate’s Court Practice §187.01[5][b] [2024]). Here, the term “[m]y primary residence” in the subject Will is unambiguous in its common usage. However, Objectant has raised a latent ambiguity on the ground that the Brownstone and Lot bear two separate lot numbers according to the Tax map. Therefore, the Court will consider the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties to discern the Testator’s intent.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
July 11, 2024
New York, NY

The National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers recognizes U.S.-based law firms performing exemplary work on behalf of plaintiffs.


Learn More
July 22, 2024 - July 24, 2024
Lake Tahoe, CA

GlobeSt. Women of Influence Conference celebrates the women who drive the commercial real estate industry forward.


Learn More

Cullen and Dykman is seeking an associate attorney with a minimum of 5+ years in insurance coverage experience as well as risk transfer and ...


Apply Now ›

McCarter & English, LLP is actively seeking a midlevel insurance coverage associate for its Newark, NJ and/or Philadelphia, PA offices. ...


Apply Now ›

McCarter & English, LLP, a well established and growing law firm, is actively seeking a talented and driven associate having 2-5 years o...


Apply Now ›
06/27/2024
The American Lawyer

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/21/2024
Daily Business Review

Full Page Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/14/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›