Some of Johnson's family members argue "no," that "Johnson meant to benefit spouses only if they were still married to his offspring," while those opposed said on www.law.com, "Had he meant to include 'surviving spouses,' he would have said so."
But after James Scott Hill, the J&J in-house lawyer who helped draft Johnson's 1961 trust, testified at a trial in Middlesex County, Superior Court Judge Joseph Messina "ruled in Richards' favor."
"Hill testified that he believed Johnson meant to exclude divorced spouses but not widowed ones. He could not recall a specific conversation with Johnson about the use of the word 'spouse,' however."
Therefore, according to Eugene Purcell, a lawyer representing Johnson's great-grandchildren, Hill's "testimony should have been completely discounted."
"Mr. Hill's testimony lacks foundation. It's opinion testimony," Purcell said.
Representing one of Johnson's grandsons, Richard Collier Jr. said, "Hill's testimony should have been inadmissible, based as it was on his 'general relationship' with Johnson and a 'general feeling' about what Johnson was thinking."
"Feelings and relationships are not facts," added Collier. "It should have been knocked out."
However, according to Richards' lawyer, Alan Naar, Hill, "because of his 'unique position,'" would have had "first-hand knowledge of Johnson's intent."
"Naar said the testimony was properly admitted because it was more than just opinion: Hill developed his understanding of Johnson's intent through numerous conversations about the trust's wording," says the article.
"Mr. Hill was the man on the scene doing the work," added Naar.
