Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 112.227 (2026)

Intention of testator expressed in will as controlling

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

112.227 Intention of testator expressed in will as controlling. The intention of a testator as expressed in the will of the testator controls the legal effect of the dispositions of the testator. The rules of construction expressed in this section, ORS 112.230 and 112.410 apply unless a contrary intention is indicated by the will. [1973 c.506 §10]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Allen v. Hall, 974 P.2d 199 (Or. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allen v. Hall, 974 P.2d 199 (Or. 1999). “2 See ORS 112.227 (“The intention of a testator as expressed in the will of the testator controls the legal effect of the disposition of the testator.”

Bonner v. Arnold, 676 P.2d 290 (Or. 1984). · cites it 4× “Our decision gives a testator maximum flexibility in planning the disposition of property, and allows the intention of the testator to control, as required by ORS 112.227. [4] It allows a person who finds the statutory intestate division to be equitable to rely on that…”

Kidder v. Olsen, 31 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Beatie, 32 Or 305, 309 , 52 P 89 (1898); see also ORS 112.227 (codifying common-law rule). A court seeking to divine the testator’s intent “as expressed in his will” is not, however, limited solely to the words used in the will.”

Larson v. Naslund, 700 P.2d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “” ORS 112.227 now states, in part: *706 “The intention of a testator as expressed in his will controls the legal effect of his dispositions.”

Garcia v. Clark, 455 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Olsen, 176 Or App 457, 463 , 31 P3d 1139 (2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; ellipsis in origi- nal); see also ORS 112.227 (“The intention of a testator as expressed in the will of the testator controls the legal effect of the dispositions of the testator.”

McClain v. Hardy, 56 P.3d 501 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “Hardy argues that, in light of decedent’s clearly expressed intention that Smith take no more than the sewing machine, the photos, and the china cup, under ORS 112.227, the law of intestate succession must give way to that intention.”

Kirkeby v. Covenant House, 970 P.2d 241 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “ORS 112.227 provides: “The intention of a testator as expressed in the will of the testator controls the legal effect of the dispositions of the testator.”

Smith v. Brannan, 954 P.2d 1259 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “]” ORS 112.227. As noted, Chester’s 1988 will expressly revoked his 1978 will, made no reference to Doris’ exercise of the power of appointment granted to her in the 1978 will but, instead, required her to refer specifically to the 1988 will to exercise the power.”

Roley v. Sammons, 170 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “ORS 112.227 sets the lodestar for the administration of a will: “[t]he intention of a testator as expressed in the will of the testator controls the legal effect of the dispositions of the *408 testator.”

Cotton v. Lansing, 344 Or. App. 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “See ORS 112.227 (“The intention of a testator as expressed in the will of the testa- tor controls the legal effect of the dispositions of the testa- tor.”

Owens v. Heisel, 679 P.2d 331 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “” ORS 112.227. Here, the settlor’s intent has already been frustrated — he intended that a trust be established and that the trustee “pay to or apply for the benefit of said Joseph Edwin Owens such portions of the net income and principal of his trust estate- as my trustee…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.