Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re the Estate of Kesling

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 2012No. 26204Published

1DissentSeverson, Justice

[¶ 18.] I respectfully dissent. “Our goal ‘in interpreting a will is to discern the testator’s intent.’ ” Novak v. Novak, 2007 S.D. 108, ¶ 12, 741 N.W.2d 222, 226 (quoting In re Estate of Klauzer, 2000 S.D. 7, ¶ 9, 604 N.W.2d 474, 477). “If intent is clear from the language used, that intent controls.” In re Estate of Roehr, 2001 S.D. 85, ¶ 9, 631 N.W.2d 600, 603 (quoting Estate of Klauzer, 2000 S.D. 7, ¶ 9, 604 N.W.2d at 477) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[i]f doubt exists as to the testator’s intent, ‘the language used and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Matter of Estate of JetterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  2. In Re Estate of KlauzerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Nelson v. First Northwestern Trust Co. of South DakotaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Osterkamp v. WeeksSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  5. In Re the Estate of RoehrSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API