Testatrix executed a will in 1977 naming Greenhalge (D) as both her principal beneficiary and the executor of her estate. In 1980, she executed two codicils to the will. Under the will, D was to receive all of testatrix's personal property except for those items which were otherwise disposed of in a memorandum which was mentioned in the will, and which the will recited was known to D. D had helped testatrix draft such a memorandum in 1972. Testatrix also kept a notebook, dated 1979, which listed dispositions of personal property: she made entries in this notebook periodically. In the notebook, testatrix indicated that a painting hanging in her house was to be given to her neighbor, Clark (P). This was not indicated in the memorandum which D helped her draft. After testatrix's death, D received her will, the memorandum, and the notebook, and distributed the property in accordance with them. However, he refused to give the painting to P. At trial, the judge found that the 1979 notebook was a 'memorandum' within the meaning of the will; the notebook was in existence at the time the codicils were executed; and that the codicils ratified the portion of the 1977 will referring to the memorandum.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.