Equitable Apportionment

Charlotte J. Williams died testate on September 5, 2003.  Her will was admitted to probate.  After all the bequests had been paid, she stated in her will that all debts and expenses should be paid from the residue, “without apportionment or reimbursement.”  Any amounts remaining were left to the Don E. and Charlotte Williams Charitable Foundation. The residue totaled $792,316, but the total taxes on the estate came to $1,896,265.
   

The executor of the estate sought to equitably apportion the taxes among the beneficiaries. However, the beneficiaries claimed the language “without apportionment or reimbursement” indicated the testator’s intent to prohibit the application of equitable apportionment. The trial court disagreed, saying that, “because Charlotte’s will only stated “without reimbursement” and lacked the language ‘from any person,’ her intent was ambiguous.”  Upon review, the appellate court agreed with the trial court:
   

[T]he language “pay from the residue of my estate …without apportionment or reimbursement” only expresses Charlotte’s intent to prohibit the beneficiary of the residue from seeking apportionment or reimbursement of the amounts paid out of it from the beneficiaries of the probate and nonprobate assets. Simply put, the will is void of any direction as to what should occur in the case that the residue is inadequate to satisfy the estate’s taxes and expenses. We do not know the reason for this omission. We can presume that Charlotte did not foresee that the residue would be insufficient to satisfy the tax burden. Regardless, because the will is silent as to what is to occur in such a case, we must find it ambiguous.
   

Because her intent was ambiguous, the doctrine of equitable apportionment applied.
   

See In re Estate of Williams, 366 Ill. App. 3d 746 (2006).