In re Proestler’s Will

Henry Proestler’s will created a trust that paid his widow Mathilde income for life, then directed distribution of the remaining assets among several specific bequests. However, Henry’s will also gave Mathilde a testamentary power of appointment to dispose of $20,000 of the trust assets under her own will upon her death. Mathilde died 26 years later, leaving a will that gave the residue of her estate to her nephew, Werner Grabbe, to care for Mathilde’s sister. However, the will did not specifically refer to Mathilde’s testamentary power of appointment or the $20,000 in the trust that she could direct distributed as she chose. After Mathilde’s will was admitted to probate, the successor trustee asked the court to instruct whether the $20,000 should go to Grabbe as part of the residue of Mathilde’s estate or to the devisees Henry specified in his will along with the rest of the trust assets. Grabbe offered oral testimony that Mathilde intended to give him the $20,000 under her will. The court found the oral testimony was not necessary or admissible to controvert Mathilde’s will because the will’s terms were clear and unambiguous. The court concluded that Mathilde’s will did not exercise her power of appointment, meaning the $20,000 went to the devisees specified under Henry’s will with the rest of the trust assets. Grabbe appealed.