By: dmc-admin//July 1, 2002//
By: dmc-admin//July 1, 2002//
James Kiecker appeals from a judgment construing a testamentary trust established by Harvey Tetzlaff’s will. The circuit court denied Kiecker’s motion to distribute the trust’s remaining assets to Tetzlaff’s heirs. At issue was Tetzlaff’s use of the phrase “residue of my estate” to distribute the trust residue’s assets to a number of charities. Kiecker argued this language caused the gift to lapse and the residue should be distributed to Tetzlaff’s heirs according to the laws of intestacy. The court determined the phrase was ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence to determine Tetzlaff’s intent.
After hearing this evidence, the court found Tetzlaff’s intent was to distribute the residue among the charities. We conclude the language of the trust is inconsistent.
In addition, the evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that Tetzlaff’s intent was to distribute the residue to the charities and therefore we affirm the judgment.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist III, Brown County, Naze, J., Cane, C.J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Roy G. Stohlman, Appleton
For Respondent: Donald V. Kozlovsky, Milwaukee; Robert B. Peregrine, Milwaukee