AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case revolves around the distribution and interpretation of Pauline S. Perea's Will, specifically concerning a tract of real property (Tract A) devised to the Plaintiff, Paul Perea, and a house not specifically devised in the Will, leading to a dispute between Paul Perea and his brother, Rudy Perea Sr., the personal representative of the Estate. At the time of Pauline S. Perea's death, Tract A was encumbered by a reverse mortgage. The dispute also extended to another property, Tract B, which included buildings specifically mentioned in the Will and one building (4229 Corrales Road) that was not, leading to questions about its distribution.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Will did not allow the personal representative to deed Tract A to him without first paying off the reverse mortgage from the Estate's funds. Contended that the Will required the Estate to pay the mortgage on Tract A, permitted exoneration of the mortgage, and that the personal representative had no discretion to convey the property as he did. Also argued that the Will intended for Tract B to be left to him as a single, undivided tract.
• Defendant: Maintained that the Will's language supported the actions taken regarding Tract A and that the Estate's funds were insufficient to pay off the reverse mortgage without liquidating other properties. Argued that it was within the personal representative's discretion to convey Tract A with the mortgage and that the Will did not require the Estate to pay off the mortgage. Also contended that the property at 4229 Corrales Road was part of the Estate's residue and should be split per stirpes.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Will permits the personal representative to deed Tract A to the Plaintiff without first paying the reverse mortgage from the Estate's funds.
• Whether a house not specifically devised in the Will was part of the Estate’s residuary to be split equally between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order regarding the distribution of the Estate and the interpretation of the Will.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Katherine A. Wray, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Shammara H. Henderson, unanimously concluded that the plain language of the Will supported the district court's decisions. The Court found that the Will did not require the Estate to pay off the reverse mortgage on Tract A before its conveyance to the Plaintiff and that the personal representative had the discretion to convey the property subject to the mortgage, considering the Estate's insufficient funds to cover the mortgage without liquidating other properties. Regarding Tract B, the Court determined that the building at 4229 Corrales Road, not specifically mentioned in the Will, was part of the Estate's residue and should be distributed per stirpes, in line with the Will's directives for residue distribution. The Court relied on the Will's language and statutory law to interpret the personal representative's powers and the distribution of the Estate's assets, emphasizing the intent to ascertain the testator's intent through the words used in the Will (paras 1-14).