Delaware Court of Chancery Construes Defective Will to Determine Beneficiaries
In re Estate of Robert Marchlewicz, aka Bobby Marshall, C.A. No. 2025-1113-DG (June 16, 2026)
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued a final letter decision resolving a petition for instructions (the “Petition”) to determine the beneficiaries of a will (the “Will”) containing multiple drafting defects. The defects included informal handwritten additions, the absence of a residuary clause, and ambiguous contingency language.
Robert Marchlewicz (the “Decedent”) died on March 30, 2024, with no living spouse, children, siblings, or parents. Henriestine “Trudi” Scheurer (the “Petitioner”), the Decedent’s administrative assistant and confidant, was named executrix of his Will.
The Will, executed in 2020, is a form with blank spaces completed in handwriting. It was signed by two witnesses and accompanied by a notarized, self-proving affidavit. Additionally, the Will contained later-dated handwritten entries in the margins. The Register of Wills admitted the original Will to probate, but identified three issues requiring court guidance: (i) the later-added handwritten marginal additions lacked the required signatures of two witnesses, (ii) the absence of a residuary clause, and (iii) ambiguity in a real-property provision concerning a potential beneficiary.
The Register issued letters of testamentary to Petitioner but required a court order determining the estate’s beneficiaries, prompting her to file the Petition. After an evidentiary hearing and supplemental filings confirming estate assets and notice to interested parties, the court took the matter under advisement.
Although the Will contemplated a separate written memorandum directing dispositions of Decedent’s tangible personal property, no such memorandum was produced. The court declined to give effect to a handwritten marginal addition because it lacked the requisite signatures of two witnesses. As a result, the Will’s fallback language controlled and the tangible personal property passed to Petitioner. Additionally, the court affirmed the Register’s explanation that because the Will lacked a residuary clause, the residue of Decedent’s estate, if any, will pass in accordance with Delaware’s intestate law.
The court upheld the validity of all but two specific bequests in the Will, which included charitable gifts, cash bequests, and the devise of Decedent’s LLC interest to Petitioner. The court also treated a handwritten entry devising Decedent’s personal checking account to Petitioner as part of the original, properly executed Will. By contrast, the court found that the devises of two vehicles failed by ademption because both vehicles had been sold prior to Decedent’s death, and therefore, the property no longer existed in the estate. Under Delaware law, the specific devise is revoked when ademption occurs. Accordingly, the named recipients of the vehicles were not beneficiaries under the Will.
The court also addressed an internally inconsistent real property provision. The first sentence clearly devised two parcels of Delaware real property to Petitioner, while the subsequent sentence introduced contingency language that referenced a different individual’s predeceasing the Decedent. Because both individuals survived the Decedent, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to resolve the ambiguity and enforced the first sentence as written, awarding the real property to Petitioner.
Together, these rulings illustrate the court’s approach to construing wills and resolving ambiguity, failed devises, and execution defects. This decision underscores the risks of relying on form wills and informal handwritten modifications. Practitioners should take care that testamentary instruments are properly drafted, fully executed, and periodically reviewed to avoid unintended results and the need for judicial intervention.
This blog entry was primarily authored by Catharine M. Kern.
