Legal Opinion

In re Estate of Massey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided October 13, 1998PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FISHER, P.J.Ch.

The simply stated, yet deeply, perplexing issue raised involves a bequest in a Will which directed that one-third of the residue should pass “to my niece, DIANE HALL and/or Grandniece, CARLY HALL.” Beyond the shadow of any doubt, the use of the phrase “and/or” in that setting is utterly ambiguous and convolutes the ascertainment of the decedent’s intent.

Indeed, the use of “and/or”, notwithstanding its setting, has been roundly criticized — and deservedly so. In Employers’ Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Tollefsen, 219 Wis. 434, 263 N.W. 376, 377 (Wis.1935), it was said:

We are…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Howell v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
  2. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. HemenoverSupreme Court of Colorado · 1937
  3. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. TollefsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  4. American General Ins. Co. v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  5. Holmes v. GrossSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State of New Jersey v. Victor GonzalezNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2016
  2. Loigman v. Kings Landing Condominium Ass'nNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API