Gove v. Hammond

385 Mass. 1001
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 12, 1982·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

We granted the defendants’ application for further appellate review in order to restate the rule: “Courts . . . ‘have no power to reform wills. Hypothetical or imaginary mistakes of testators cannot be corrected. Omissions cannot be supplied. Language cannot be modified to meet unforeseen changes in conditions. The only means for ascertaining the intent of the testator are the words written and the acts [1002]*1002done by him.’ Sanderson v. Norcross, 242 Mass. 43, 46 [1922].” Salter v. Salter, 338 Mass. 391, 393 (1959). A failure to provide for a contingency may lead to either a partial or complete intestacy. See Wright v. Benttinen, 352 Mass. 495 (1967).

Edwin E. Kaarela for Louise E. Hardy & others. David L. Taylor for Marion F. Hammond & another.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gove v. Hammond, 385 Mass. 1001 (Mass. 1982).

385 Mass. 1001 (Gove v. Hammond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Flannery v. McNamara
432 Mass. 665 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2000)
Schwartz v. BayBank Merrimack Valley, N.A.
456 N.E.2d 1141 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)