Definition
Mento annexo is a Latin phrase meaning "with the will annexed." It appears most commonly in the fuller phrase *cum testamento annexo* (often abbreviated c.t.a.), describing a form of probate administration granted when a decedent left a valid will but no executor is available or able to serve.
This form of administration arises in four principal circumstances: (1) the testator named no executor in the will; (2) the named executor is legally incompetent to act; (3) the named executor refuses to qualify or serve; or (4) the named executor has died, including where a sole surviving executor has died before the estate is fully administered.
In each case, the probate court appoints an administrator to carry out the terms of the will. That administrator holds authority derived from the court's grant, not from the testator's nomination, and is bound to administer the estate in conformity with the will's directions rather than according to the rules of intestate distribution.
Common Confusion
Mento annexo is frequently encountered alongside *de bonis non* and the combined phrase *de bonis non cum testamento annexo* (d.b.n.c.t.a.). These are distinct grants. *Cum testamento annexo* administration applies from the beginning of estate administration when no executor is available. *De bonis non* administration applies when a prior administrator or executor has died or been removed before completing administration — that is, it addresses the unadministered remainder of an estate already partially administered. The combined form *de bonis non cum testamento annexo* applies when a prior administrator c.t.a. has died or been removed before finishing the work. Researchers encountering any of these abbreviations in historical records should confirm which grant is at issue before drawing conclusions about the estate's procedural posture.
Why It Matters in Research
The phrase rarely appears alone in primary sources. Researchers are more likely to encounter it as part of the abbreviated forms c.t.a. or d.b.n.c.t.a. in probate records, court orders, and estate inventories. Misreading these abbreviations — or treating them as interchangeable — produces errors in tracing the chain of estate administration.
In historical American records, particularly from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Latin phrase appears with some frequency in court minutes and letters testamentary. By the mid-twentieth century, most American jurisdictions shifted to English-language probate forms, but the underlying concept persisted under the label "administrator with the will annexed." Researchers working with older New York materials should note Burrill's direct citation to the New York Revised Statutes, which codified this form of administration early; comparable statutory treatment appeared across other states at varying times.
One research trap: the absence of a named executor in a will does not always mean the decedent failed to plan carefully — some testators deliberately omitted executor nominations, leaving the court to appoint. The grant of administration c.t.a. is therefore not itself evidence of a defective will.
For corpus researchers, entries concerning mento annexo connect naturally to the broader administration framework. Understanding whether an estate was administered by an executor, an administrator c.t.a., or an administrator d.b.n. affects how subsequent transfers of property and creditor claims should be read.
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the core historical treatment, defining the phrase as "administration with the will annexed" and enumerating the four circumstances that give rise to it: no executor named, executor incompetent, executor refusing to act, or executor deceased. Burrill grounds the definition in Blackstone's Commentaries (2 Bl. Com. 503–504), the foundational English authority on the subject, and in the New York Revised Statutes — reflecting the early American statutory codification of what had been common-law probate practice.
Blackstone's treatment, which Burrill tracks closely, situates this form of administration within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction that historically governed probate in England before the creation of secular probate courts. The English framework passed into American common law and was then reorganized by state statute throughout the nineteenth century. Burrill's entry does not address this jurisdictional transition explicitly, which is a meaningful gap for researchers working across the pre- and post-codification periods.
No significant divergence among historical sources on the core meaning; the term is technically stable. The historical dictionaries collectively say little about the administrator c.t.a.'s powers relative to a named executor — a point that generated some case law in the nineteenth century and is better pursued through treatises on executors and administrators than through dictionary sources alone.
Jurisdictional Note
All American states recognize administration with the will annexed under statutory probate frameworks, though terminology varies. Some codes use "administrator c.t.a." as a formal designation; others use "administrator with the will annexed" in full. The Uniform Probate Code addresses the appointment of a personal representative in analogous circumstances, but the Latin phrase itself appears rarely in modern uniform-act jurisdictions.