Ambiguities and Mistakes Flashcards
The Latent Ambiguity: “I give $5,000 to my nephew, John Paul Jones.” At the time T executed the will he had two nephews whose names were James Peter Jones and Paul Frederick Jones. T had never met nor corresponded with either nephew, and no nephew named John Paul Jones ever existed. Who takes the $5,000?
If read on the surface all looks well, however there is a problem
Rule: extrinsic evidence is admissible to clear up a latent ambiguity
Intent - had the mind, in the absence for clearer evidence needed or fails to residue
Suppose T had a nephew named John Paul Jones, whom he hadn’t seen for ten years. After T’s death, Paul Frederick Jones comes in and says, “There’s been a terrible mistake! T told me on numerous occasions that he intended to, and that he had, left a legacy for me in the will.” The stenographer who typed the will says “I goofed. I have the notes T gave me, from which I typed the will, and they show clearly that the legacy was supposed to have been given to Paul Frederick Jones.” Is this evidence admissible?
In most states: No - This evidence violates the plain meaing rule = Cannot distrub the plain meaning of a will with extrinsic evidence, the difference with 29 is that that will never had a plain meaning, no John paul Jones, in 30 there is no ambiguity
UPC: YES - A court may reform the terms of a will, even if unambiguous, to conform the terms to the testator’s intent if it is proved by clear and convincing evidence that both the accomplishment of the testator’s intent and the terms of the will were affected by a mistake of fact or law. In determining the testator’s original intent, the court may consider evidence relevant even though the evidence contradicts an apparent plain meaning of the will.
