DeBardeleben v. DeBardeleben

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority errs in construing the “exception” of “normal wear and tear excepted” and in its error virtually nullifies the express “rule” under the will that the widow “shall maintain and keep the [house] in good condition and repair.”1

It is well settled that a court’s interpretation of a will is guided by the testator’s intent. Gafford v. Kirby, 512 So.2d 1356, 1360 (Ala.1987). The testator’s intent controls the construction of a will, and “[i]t is the *925Court’s duty to carry out the testator’s intention where that intent can be ascertained.” Galin v.…