Legal Question in Wills and Trusts in Arizona

A little bit of background history first to give you some context. The families eldest daughter was chosen to administer the estate, chosen by our now deceased mother. There is much rancor that exists between her and me. I am one of four beneficiaries named in my mother's Last Will and Testament. My eldest sister being both beneficiary and personal representative. My mother's estate is being informally probated in the state of Arizona.

The crux of my question revolves around the "Wills construction" and the interpretation of clauses within the will. I recently spoke with my eldest sister regarding the assets of the estate. Upon speaking to her about this matter she told me, to my absolute abject horror that she was named joint-tenant on our mother's Certificate of Deposit valued at eighty-thousand dollars.

Upon discussing this matter with the other beneficiaries, my siblings, it's abundantly clear that this was never our mother's original intent. Now, here's the issue we have. Our mother made it quite clear to us four children, including our eldest sister that the entire estate was to be divided "equally" among her four children. Upon further discussion with our sister, the Personal Representative, we got a confession from her, both verbal and taped on a voice recorder stating that she too, believed that our mother's real intent was to leave all of her children equal amounts split four ways. The scary part is that even after conceding this fact she has let us know that she has no intention of sharing the CD and that by "operation of law" she is legally entitled to the full and sole ownership of the CD.

Here is where I would like to understand the 'ordinary meaning' of the words used in our mother's will. Specifically Article V.

ARTICLE V Residuary Estate

A. "My residuary estate" is all of my property after the payment of debts and taxes, and after the distribution of the personal property in Article IV above. My residuary estate includes all property held in joint tenancy or for which a beneficiary is designated.

B. I direct that my residuary estate be divided equally among my four children, to-wit,[sic]

'it finishes with all four children being named.'

So here it appears that the clause "My residuary estate includes all property held in joint tenancy or for which a beneficiary is designated." would seem to support our belief in that our mother's true intent was never for any single child to benefit more than the others. My sister stated that our mother's knowledge of financial matters was extremely poor. Me and the other siblings agree 100% with this assertion. We contest that the reason or eldest sister was added as a joint-tenant was merely for reasons of convenience and that it was never the intent of our mother that one child receive more than the others.

It is almost 100% assured that this was in fact our mother's original intentions. She added our sister to the CD because she trusted her to distribute all of her assets equally in accordance with her oft stated wishes that it be so.

So my closing question is: Do we the remaining siblings have sufficient legal standing to fight the "meaning" of our mother's Residuary Estate declarations, knowing that it states that her "jointly" held property is considered part of her Residuary Estate? Would this not include the jointly-held CD as well? Also considering the fact that the consistent language of her will favors "equal" distribution?

Sadly, from everything I have read it appears that joint-tenancy is just that, joint-tenancy. Meaning that it is considered a non-probate asset and thus passes by operation of law. But what about the "meaning" and "construction" of our mother's will, can it speak as to the original intent of our mother and thus require our sister to return the CD to the estate as it was clearly intended?

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Probate, Trusts, Wills & Estates questions and answers in Arizona

Looking for something else?