CITATION: Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00748084-00ES
DATE: 20260826
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Estates List)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM ROBERT BOYLE, Deceased
BETWEEN:
CHRISTINE BOYLE, in her capacity as named executor for the Estate of William Robert Boyle
Applicant
– and –
WATSON BOYLE, DENNIS MARINEAU, VAN MARINEAU, ELIZABETH BOYLE COFFIN, DEBORAH BOYLE PENTECOSTE, SUSAN BOYLE GREENHALGH, IVY BOYLE, VICKIE BOYLE LEPAGE, CAROLE COFFIN, LESLIE BOYLE, VIRGINIA BOYLE, ELLA BOYLE, SHARON BOYLE DEE, FAY BOYLE PETERS, NEIL BOYLE, AUDREY BOYLE AUSTIN, MARGARET BOYLE, RUTH BOYLE ORGAN, DANIEL BOYLE, ALISON BOYLE, ROBERTA BOYLE, ANDREA BOYLE, STEPHEN BOYLE, TRUDIE BOYLE BOUCHARD, ROBERT BOYLE, SHIRLEY BOYLE, ESTATE OF DAVID BOYLE, and NICOLE HENRY
Respondents
Daniel Vaisfeld, for the Applicant
No one appearing, for the Respondents
HEARD: May 22, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
A.A. SANFILIPPO J.
Overview
[1] William Robert Boyle died on March 7, 2025, at the age of 86 (the “Deceased”). The Deceased was not married, had no children, and was predeceased by his parents and by 9 of his 16 siblings.
[2] The Deceased left a last will and testament dated March 15, 2010 (the “Will”), which named his twin brother, Watson Boyle, and Watson’s daughter, Christine Boyle, as estate trustees. Watson renounced appointment as estate trustee, with the result that, on February 2, 2026, Gilmore, J. ordered that Christine be appointed as estate trustee of the estate of William Robert Boyle (the “Estate”), upon the filing of the required probate application, which was done on March 25, 2026.
[3] In her capacity as Estate Trustee, Christine brought this Application for directions on the effect of notations made by the Deceased in handwriting on the typed, original Will, some dated and others undated, mostly then struck out by the Deceased. If the original terms of the Will govern as unaltered, the residue of the Estate would be distributed in accordance with the terms of the Will. If the handwritten notations are found to have amended the Will, the residue of the Estate would be distributed as an intestacy.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I find that the handwritten notations made by the Deceased in the residue clause of the Will are not compliant with the formalities for alteration of a will as set out in s. 18 of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (the “SLRA”). Further, viewing the handwritten notations as a failed attempt by the Deceased to make a holograph codicil, the writing made by the Deceased on the typed, original Will cannot be validated under s. 21.1 of the SLRA. As a result, I find that the original residue clause of the Will is confirmed and shall govern distribution of the residue of the Estate without regard to the handwritten notations.
[5] For brevity, I will respectfully refer to the family members in these Reasons by their first names. I do so intending no disrespect but rather to foster clarity in these Reasons considering that many of the family members share the surname Boyle.
I. THE EVIDENCE
[6] The evidence in support of this Application was provided by the Applicant Estate Trustee, Christine, in an affidavit sworn August 7, 2025. The Applicant’s evidence is corroborated by the documents exhibited to her affidavit and is unchallenged by the Respondents. I accept the Applicant’s evidence as reliable, credible, and uncontested.
A. The Deceased’s Family
[7] The Deceased was never married. However, he had a common law partner, Bridget Thompson, from whom he separated some 28 years ago. Bridget had two children from a prior relationship, namely, Dennis Martineau and Van Martineau.[1] Christine deposed, and I accept, that the Deceased remained quite close to Dennis and Van throughout his lifetime.
[8] The Deceased had 16 brothers and sisters. Nine of his siblings predeceased him, leaving seven surviving siblings. Of these nine siblings, four did not have any children.
B. The Will
[9] The Deceased’s Will, dated March 15, 2010, was prepared by his lawyer, Howard Binsky. The Deceased’s due execution of the Will was attested to by Mr. Binsky, and legal assistant Lynda Reid, as established by an Affidavit of Execution sworn by Mr. Binsky on March 15, 2010. No one challenges that the Will is the valid and effective last will and testament of the Deceased.
[10] In Clause V(d) of the unaltered Will, the Deceased directs his Estate Trustee to distribute the residue of his Estate as follows (the “Residue Clause”):
“To pay to Dennis Martineau the son of my common law spouse fifteen (15) percent
To pay to Van Martineau the son of my common law spouse ten (10) percent
To pay to my brother Watson Boyle fifteen (15) per cent
To pay to me (sic) niece Christine Boyle fifteen (15) per cent.
To pay to my sister Elizabeth Boyle ten (10) per cent
To pay to my sister Deborah Pentcoste ten (10) per cent
To pay to my niece Susan Boyle, to my niece Ivy Boyle, to my niece Vickie Boyle, to my niece Carole Boyle and to my nephew Leslie Boyle five (5) per cent each.”
[11] With reference to the Boyle family tree tendered by Christine, the residuary beneficiaries in the Will comprise the following members of the Deceased’s family (collectively, the “Testamentary Residuary Beneficiaries”):
(a) The two adult children of his former common law spouse;
(b) His surviving brother Watson, and Watson’s daughter Christine;
(c) His surviving sister Elizabeth, and Elizabeth’s daughter Carole;[2]
(d) His surviving sister Deborah,[3] who has no children;
(e) His niece Susan, whose father, Anson Boyle, predeceased the Deceased;
(f) His nieces Ivy and Vickie,[4] whose father, Wesley Boyle, predeceased the Deceased.
(g) His nephew Leslie, whose father, Richard, predeceased the Deceased.
[12] The Deceased did not include his other family members in the Residue Clause, who may be listed as follows (the “Unnamed Family Members”):
(a) The following surviving sisters of the Deceased:
i. Virginia Boyle.
ii. Ella Boyle.
iii. Sharon Boyle Dee.
iv. Fay Boyle Peters.
(b) The following surviving children of siblings who have died:
i. The four (4) living children of the Deceased’s late brother, John Boyle, namely: Neil Boyle, Audrey Boyle Austin, Margaret Boyle, and Ruth Boyle Organ.
ii. The four (4) living children of the Deceased’s late brother, Floyd Boyle, namely: Daniel Boyle, Alison Boyle, Roberta Boyle, and Andrea Boyle.
iii. Four (4) of the five (5) living children of the Deceased’s late brother, Anson, namely: Stephen Boyle, Trudie Boyle Bouchard, Robert Boyle, and Shirley Boyle.
iv. One (1) of the two (2) children of the Deceased’ late brother, Richard, namely David Boyle, who has since died on June 12, 2025, and is survived by his spouse, Lisa Annet.
[13] The Deceased had four siblings who died with no children: Ruby Boyle, Emily Boyle, Marjorie Boyle, and Jean Sara Boyle. This will be important to an analysis of succession in an intestacy under s. 47(4) of the SLRA.
C. The Handwritten Notations on the Will
[14] The notations made by the Deceased in the Residue Clause of the Will are best understood by reference to the original, as they are comprised of writing, strikethroughs, and three handwritten dates ranging from October 2022 to May 2024, as follows (herein the “Handwritten Notations”):
[15] The Handwritten Notations have the following characteristics:
(a) The Handwritten Notations were made on the Will on at least three occasions: October 22, 2020, May 14, 2021, and May 7, 2024.
(b) Some of the Handwritten Notations are accompanied by initials but undated.
(c) The Handwritten Notations of October 22, 2020, and May 14, 2021, are themselves struck out. The only date that is not struck out is May 7, 2024.
(d) The handwritten addition of Nicole Henry, identified as a friend, as a residuary beneficiary to the extent of 20% is struck out.
[16] If I were to give effect to each of the Handwritten Notations, there would be no valid and effective Residue Clause. This is because the Handwritten Notations purport to delete each paragraph of the Residue Clause. Without a valid and effective Residue Clause, the residue of the Estate would be distributed as an intestacy.
II. THE ISSUE
[17] This Application seeks directions from the Court with respect to the effect of the Handwritten Notations on the Residue Clause of the Will, and seeks one of the following two orders:
(a) an Order confirming the unaltered terms of the Will, irrespective of the Handwritten Notations on the Residue Clause; or
(b) an Order confirming that the Handwritten Notations made to the Will are legitimate and that the residue of the Estate shall be distributed as an intestacy.
[18] This Application for directions is brought in accordance with Rule 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O 1990, Reg. 194, and based on s. 60(1) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23: “A trustee, guardian or personal representative may, without the institution of an action, apply to the Superior Court of Justice for the opinion, advice or direction of the court on any question respecting the management or administration of the trust property or the assets of a ward or a testator or intestate.”
III. NOTICE TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE WILL AND IN A PARTIAL INTESTACY
[19] Rule 9.01(2)(a) requires that the Applicant provide notice to everyone who has the potential to be a beneficiary of the Estate, whether according to the Will or in an intestacy. If the Residue Clause is unaltered by the Handwritten Notations, the beneficiaries are the 11 Testamentary Residuary Beneficiaries.
[20] If the Residue Clause has been deleted by the Handwritten Notations, the residue of the Estate would pass as an intestacy. Considering that the Deceased’s parents predeceased him and that he left no spouse or issue, section 47(4) of the SLRA would apply to cause the residue of the Estate to be “distributed among the surviving brothers and sisters of the intestate equally, and if any brother or sister predeceases the intestate, the share of the deceased brother or sister shall be distributed among his or her children equally.”
[21] In application of s. 47(4) of the SLRA, distribution of the residue of the Estate in a partial intestacy would be in equal one-twelfth (1/12th) shares to each of the Deceased’s seven surviving siblings and a one-twelfth (1/12th) share to be divided between the children of each of the Deceased’s five siblings who pre-deceased him. The intestate distribution of the residue of the Estate would thereby be to 24 family members, as follows:
(a) A one-twelfth (1/12th) share to each of Watson, Deborah, Virginia, Ella, Sharon, Elizabeth, and Fay as the seven surviving siblings.
(b) A one-twelfth (1/12th) share to the four children of the late John Boyle, namely, Neil, Audrey, Margaret, and Ruth (each to receive 1/4 of 1/12th).
(c) A one-twelfth (1/12th) share to the four children of the late Floyd Boyle, namely, Daniel, Alison, Roberta, and Andrea Boyle (each to receive 1/4 of 1/12th).
(d) A one-twelfth (1/12th) share to the two children of the late Wesley Boyle, namely, Vickie and Ivy (each to receive 1/2 of 1/12th).
(e) A one-twelfth (1/12th) share to the five children of the late Anson Boyle, namely, Stephen, Trudie, Susan, Robert, and Shirley (each to receive 1/5 of 1/12th).
(f) A one-twelfth (1/12th) share to the two children of the late Richard Boyle, namely, Leslie and David (each to receive 1/2 of 1/12th).
[22] The Estate Trustee took no position regarding the interpretation of the Will. None of the Respondents, comprising all beneficiaries under the Residue Clause and in a partial intestacy, appeared in this Application or at the hearing.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Are the Handwritten Notations Valid Alterations to the Will?
[23] Section 18(1) of the SLRA provides that an alteration made to a will “after the will has been made”, as here, must be made “in accordance with the provisions of this Part governing making of the will” and if the requirements for making the alteration are not satisfied, “the alteration has no effect except to invalidate words or the effect of the will that it renders no longer apparent.”
[24] Section 18(2) of the SLRA requires that the alteration to an established will must be supported by the signature of the testator and subscription of witnesses under s. 5 or 6 of the SLRA, as follows:
(2) An alteration that is made in a will after the will has been made is validly made when the signature of the testator and subscription of witnesses to the signature of the testator to the alteration, or, in the case of a will that was made under section 5 or 6, the signature of the testator, are or is made,
(a) in the margin or in some other part of the will opposite or near to the alteration; or
(b) at the end of or opposite to a memorandum referring to the alteration and written in some part of the will.
[25] Section 18(2) renders post-execution alterations invalid unless the alterations are made in accordance with the formal requirements that govern the validity of the type of will: CIBC Trust Corporation v. Horn, 43 E.T.R. (3d) 60, at para. 18. Sections 5 and 6 of the SLRA relate to wills by members of the forces, and holograph wills, respectively, and do not require subscribing witnesses. As a non-holograph will, the Will must meet the formal requirements for execution under ss. 4 and 7 of the SLRA, and so any alterations to the Will, here the Handwritten Notations, must be signed and witnessed to be valid.
[26] The Deceased did not sign any of the Handwritten Notations. In the margin, he affixed his initials, which are different than his signature. In addition, the Handwritten Notations were not witnessed by any subscribing witness.
[27] The Handwritten Notations dated October 22, 2020, May 14, 2021, and May 7, 2024, may be most generously viewed as three attempts by the Deceased to make a holograph codicil to his Will. A holograph codicil, properly made, can alter a formal will: Horn, at para. 21, citing R. Hull and I. Hull, MacDonell, Sheard and Hull on Probate Practice, 4th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1996). However, on each date on which a “writing” was made, the Handwritten Notations failed to comply with the formal requirements of s. 18(2) of the SLRA. The Handwritten Notations are therefore not valid and effective alterations to the Will.
B. Can the Handwritten Notations be Validated under s. 21.1 of the SLRA?
[28] Section 21.1 of the SLRA provides as follows:
If the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that a document or writing that was not properly executed or made under this Act sets out the testamentary intentions of a deceased or an intention of a deceased to revoke, alter or revive a will of the deceased, the Court may, on application, order that the document or writing is as valid and fully effective as the will of the deceased, or as the revocation, alteration or revival of the will of the deceased, as if it had been properly executed or made.
[29] Section 21.1 came into force on January 1, 2022. As the Deceased died on March 7, 2025, s. 21.1(1) is applicable to the issue raised by this Application.
[30] As a curative provision, s. 21.1 is intended to relieve against failure to comply with the formal requirements in the SLRA for a valid and effective will. Section 21.1 applies to a “document or writing that was not properly executed or made under” the SLRA. In my view, the Handwritten Notations are a “writing” that comes within s. 18 of the SLRA as an alteration and can be seen, viewed generously, as an attempt at a handwritten codicil. Accordingly, I am prepared to consider whether I should exercise my discretion to validate the Handwritten Notations as a “writing” under s. 21.1.
[31] In Madhani v. Fast, 2025 ONSC 4100, 99 E.T.R. (4th) 111, at paras. 33-38, I summarized the principles underlying s. 21.1 of the SLRA and the requirements necessary for its application. These principles were recently applied in Samide v. Taylor, 2026 ONSC 3589, and Smith v. Bechtel, 2026 ONSC 975. I adopt and apply these principles to my analysis of this Application. In summary, for the Handwritten Notations to be validated under s. 21.1, the Applicant has the burden of establishing, on a civil balance of probabilities, the following: first, that the Handwritten Notations are authentic; and second, that the Handwritten Notations express the Deceased’s deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the disposal of his property on death. I will consider these two requirements in order.
(a) The First Step: Are the Handwritten Notations Authentic?
[32] Considering the Will in its entirety, including the initials placed by the Deceased on each page and the content of the Will, and noting that there is no challenge to the authenticity of the Handwritten Notations or of the Will, I accept that the Handwritten Notations and the Will are authentic.
(b) The Second Step: Do the Handwritten Notations Express the Deceased’s Deliberate or Fixed and Final Expression of Intention?
[33] The determination of whether to exercise the court’s curative power with respect to a non-compliant document is fact-sensitive and, at times, can turn on extrinsic evidence: Hejno v. Hejno, 2025 ONCA 876, 99 E.T.R. (4th) 331, at para. 22; Madhani, at para. 33. For the testator’s expression of intention to be deliberate or fixed and final it need not be irrevocable, as wills are revocable until the death of the testator. Nevertheless, the intention must be fixed and final at the time that it was made.
[34] The task of a court of probate “is to determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a non-compliant document embodies the deceased’s testamentary intentions at whatever time is material”: Hadley Estate (Re), 2017 BCCA 311, 1 B.C.L.R. (6th) 301, at para. 40. The British Columbia Court of Appeal explained that “[t]he task is inherently challenging because the person best able to speak to these intentions – the deceased – is not available to testify.” The Ontario Court of Appeal provided the same guidance in Neuberger v. York, 2016 ONCA 191, 129 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 68, in instructing that the court’s jurisdiction in probate is inquisitorial, and that “[t]he court also has a special responsibility to the testator who cannot be present to give voice to his or her true intentions.”
[35] The main focus of analysis of whether the Handwritten Notations reflect a deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention by the Deceased must center on the final writings, bearing date of May 7, 2024, which struck out all the operative terms of the Residue Clause. I do not accept that the strike-through of all the operative terms is a product of the Deceased’s deliberate or fixed and final intention. This is because the product of these changes is a partial intestacy and, in my view, the Deceased did not intend for the residue of the Estate to pass as an intestacy. I will explain the reasons for this determination.
[36] There is no evidence that the Deceased was aware of the principles of intestate succession under the SLRA. Specifically, there is no evidence that the Deceased knew that if he struck out the operative terms of the Residue Clause, his Estate would be distributed in equal shares to his siblings and, in the case of a sibling who predeceased the Deceased, to the late siblings’ children. This means that there is no evidence that the Deceased intentionally struck out the operative portions of the Residue Clause because he preferred the distribution of the residue of his Estate under the principles of intestacy.
[37] An intestacy would result in a significant departure from the effect of the Residue Clause, in the following ways:
(a) Testamentary beneficiaries Dennis and Van would not receive any distribution in an intestacy because, as children of the Deceased’s former common law spouse from a prior relationship, they do not come within the meaning of “issue” for the purposes of s. 47 of the SLRA.
(b) Testamentary beneficiaries Carol and Christina would not receive any distribution in an intestacy, because their parent, who is a sibling to the Deceased, Elizabeth and Watson, respectively, survived the Deceased.
(c) In an intestacy, four of the Deceased’s surviving siblings, and 13 of the Deceased’s nephews and nieces would receive a share of the residue of the Estate even though none of these 17 family members was named by the Deceased in the Residue Clause or mentioned in any of the Handwritten Notations.
[38] Even if my analysis focused on the interim changes by the Deceased of the Handwritten Notations, leaving for the moment that they were all eventually struck out, a stage-by-stage analysis of the interim changes does not reveal a deliberate or fixed and final intention at any point in time. For example, if the October 22, 2020, alteration was intended to remove the five nephews and nieces from the Residue Clause (25% in total) and the May 14, 2021, alteration was intended to remove Elizabeth and Deborah (20% in total) and reassign their share to Nicole Henry, then the 25% share of the nephews and nieces is unaccounted for. Alternatively, if the October 22, 2020, alteration was intended to reassign the share of the nephews and nieces to Nicole Henry and the May 14, 2021, alteration was only intended to remove Elizabeth and Deborah from the Residue Clause, then 20% of the residue is unaccounted for.
[39] Considering the Deceased’s granting and removing of shares in the residue of the Estate, the lack of clarity in their description, and the inability of the changes to co-exist in an operative Residue Clause, I find that the alterations bearing date of October 22, 2020, and May 14, 2021, support a finding that the Deceased’s consideration of the distribution of the residue of his Estate was, throughout, fluid. Even if viewed on a stage-by-stage analysis, these writings are not an expression of a deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention by the Deceased.
[40] On the record tendered on this Application, and on my consideration of the entirety of the Will, I find that the Deceased did not have a deliberate or fixed and final intention to convert the distribution of the residue of his Estate into a partial intestacy. The Deceased thereby did not have a deliberate or fixed and final intention to alter his Will through the Handwritten Notations.
C. The Handwritten Notations Do Not Invalidate the Residue Clause
[41] Section 18(1) of the SLRA provides that any alteration to a will that was invalidly made, like the Handwritten Notations in this case, “has no effect except to invalidate words or the effect of the will that it renders no longer apparent.” The Handwritten Notations would thereby invalidate the Residue Clause if the writing and strikethroughs made the underlying wording of the Residue Clause “no longer apparent”.
[42] Here, the Deceased’s strikethroughs and writings do not impair a clear reading of the Residue Clause. None of the typed words in Clause V(d) are rendered less legible by the overlay of the strikethroughs and writings. Disregarding the Handwritten Notations, the Residue Clause is apparent and can be clearly read. There is no basis to invalidate the Residue Clause based on s. 18(1) of the SLRA.
D. Conclusions
[43] For these reasons, I find that the Handwritten Notations are not valid and effective alterations to the Will. Further, I decline to exercise my discretion to validate these non-compliant writings under s. 21.1 of the SLRA. The Will is valid and effective, and the original terms of the Will are confirmed, without regard to the writing and alterations in the Residue Clause.
V. DISPOSITION
[44] I order:
(a) The writing and alterations at Clause V(d) of the Last Will and Testament of William Robert Boyle dated March 15, 2010 (the “Will”) are invalid and of no force or effect.
(b) The Will is valid and effective, and the original terms of the Will are hereby confirmed, without regard to the writing and alterations at Clause V(d) of the Will.
(c) The issue of costs of this Application shall be determined by written submission, unless resolved.
[45] The Applicant may take out a formal Judgment by filing a draft Judgment on the Case Center bundle for this hearing (003), and then forwarding a copy of the draft Judgment, in PDF and Word format, to the Estates List Trial Coordinator and to my Judicial Assistant, to be brought to my attention.
[46] The lawyer for the Applicant shall forthwith serve these Reasons for Decision, and the resultant Judgment, on the Respondents.
VI. COSTS
[47] The Applicant Trustee was not in a position to speak to costs at the hearing and requested a process to make written submissions on costs, supported by a Bill of Costs, if so advised. The Applicant is encouraged to settle the issue of costs of this Application with the Respondents. If necessary, the Applicant may, within 20 days, file a written submission on costs of no more than six (6) pages together with her Bill of Costs on the Case Center bundle for this hearing (003), along with her affidavit of service showing service of the written costs submissions on all Respondents, and then deliver the written costs submissions to the Estates List Trial Coordinator and to my Judicial Assistant, to be brought to my attention. Any Respondent seeking to deliver written submissions on costs may do so within thirty (20) days of service of the Applicant’s written costs submissions. If no party delivers written submissions on costs within forty (40) days of the date of these Reasons, I will deem the issue of costs of this Application to have been settled.
A.A. Sanfilippo J.
Released: August 26, 2026
CITATION: Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00748084-00ES
DATE: 20260826
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(Estates List)
BETWEEN:
CHRISTINE BOYLE, in her capacity as named executor for the Estate of William Robert Boyle
Applicant
– and –
WATSON BOYLE, DENNIS MARINEAU, VAN MARINEAU, ELIZABETH BOYLE COFFIN, DEBORAH BOYLE PENTECOSTE, SUSAN BOYLE GREENHALGH, IVY BOYLE, VICKIE BOYLE LEPAGE, CAROLE COFFIN, LESLIE BOYLE, VIRGINIA BOYLE, ELLA BOYLE, SHARON BOYLE DEE, FAY BOYLE PETERS, NEIL BOYLE, AUDREY BOYLE AUSTIN, MARGARET BOYLE, RUTH BOYLE ORGAN, DANIEL BOYLE, ALISON BOYLE, ROBERTA BOYLE, ANDREA BOYLE, STEPHEN BOYLE, TRUDIE BOYLE BOUCHARD, ROBERT BOYLE, SHIRLEY BOYLE, ESTATE OF DAVID BOYLE, and NICOLE HENRY
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
A.A. Sanfilippo J.
Released: August 26, 2026
1The Will, the Affidavit of Christine Boyle sworn August 7, 2025 (the “Christine Boyle Affidavit”), and exhibit “D” to the of Christine Boyle Affidavit refer to Dennis and Van “Martineau”. Conversely, exhibit “F” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit and the title of proceedings refer to Dennis and Van “Marineau”.
2The Will, the Christine Boyle Affidavit, and exhibit “D” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit refer to Carole “Boyle”. Conversely, exhibit “F” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit and the title of proceedings refer to Carole “Coffin”.
3The Will, the Christine Boyle Affidavit, and exhibit “D” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit refer to Deborah “Pentecoste”. Conversely, exhibit “F” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit and the title of proceedings refer to Deborah “Boyle Pentecoste”.
4The Will, the Christine Boyle Affidavit, and Exhibit “D” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit refer to Vickie “Boyle”. Conversely, exhibit “F” to the Christine Boyle Affidavit and the title of proceedings refer to Vickie “Boyle Lepage”.