Woodward v. Smith (In re Estate of Woodward)

James Woodward, decedent, had two sons, Brian Woodward (plaintiff) and Jay Woodward. Jay and James had operated four sugar-cane farms together through a general partnership. In 2002, shortly before James’s death, Jay and James consolidated the existing debt for all four farms into a single loan agreement. James’s will left Jay a specific devise granting him James’s interests in three of the four farms. The fourth farm, Home Farm, was left to the residuary estate. Brian, Jay, and three other beneficiaries were designated as residuary beneficiaries, all to receive equal shares of the residuary estate. The will did not make any mention of the consolidated loan but did include a general provision that the estate should pay James’s debts. After James’s death, Ellen Smith (defendant), the estate’s personal representative, sold Home Farm and used the proceeds to pay off the consolidated loan, which would allow Jay to inherit James’s interest in the other three farms unencumbered. When Smith filed her final accounting and distribution plan, Brian objected and argued that (1) Smith should not have used the estate’s assets to pay off the consolidated loan because that money was part of the residuary estate; and (2) the specific devise to Jay was for the interest in the three farms with the encumbrance that existed at the time of James’s death. Smith countered, arguing that she had unfettered discretion to pay any of the estate’s debts within the administration period. The trial court rejected Brian’s objections, holding that the specific devise to Jay must be inherited unencumbered because James’s will had not specified that the devise should pass with its encumbrance intact. Brian appealed.