will contruction: Mistaken or ambiguous lang: plain meaning and no reformation

Question 1

what are two rules that bar the admission of extrinsic evidence to vary the terms of a will

Answer 1

1. plain meaning or no extrinsic evidence rule
2. no reformation rule

Question 2

what is the plain meaning/no extrinsic evidence rule

Answer 2

Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to resolve certain ambiguities, but the plain meaning of the words of a will cant be disturbed by evidence that the testator intended another meaning

Question 3

what is the justification behind the plain meaning rule and the no reformation rule

Answer 3

the worst evidence problem
The dead person is protected from fraud and error by excluding such evidence
And efficiency! Lets get it right but not work too hard

Question 4

Mahoney v grainger

The sole heir at law at the time of decedent’s death was her aunt

Attorney asked her “whom do you want to leave the rest of your property to? Who are your nearest relations?
She replied that she had about 25 cousins and to let them share it equally

“all the rest and residue of my estate, both real and personal property, I give, devise and bequeath to my heirs at law at the time of my decease; to be divided among them equally, share and share like.

Does the lang “heirs at law” refer to her 25 cousins or the aunt? can we use outside evidence to figure it out?

Answer 4

There is no doubt as to who the heirs at law are. If we read it and its plain/unambiguous the law treats it as the next best evidence of decedent intent

The aunt alone falls within that description and the cousins are excluded

The fact that a will was not in conformity to the instructions give to the draftsmen does not authorize a court to reform or alter it ; this is not an ambigity where the court can step in!

Question 5

what do we mean by ambiguity?

Answer 5

Doubt about the meaning the words on then paper

Question 6

why wasnt the use of ‘heirs at law’ an ambiguity that extrinsic evidece could clear up?

Answer 6

becuase the term is defined! looking at the face of the will, we can identify who they are, there is no confusion; the lawyer made a mistake and should not have used that term of art to describe her 25 cousins

Question 7

estate of cole

Decedent states a bequest to her friend, the appellant in “the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($25,000)

Respondent personal rep petitioned the court for a construction of the will to find that appellant’s bequest was for 25k

Appellant contested the construction
The personal rep moved for summary judgment

This was based on testimony from the scrivener, an attorney that explained he used his computer to copy and past another part of the will , and had made a mistake

Answer 7

this is a patent ambiguity as its evident on the face of the will

Traditionally the law only allows extrinsic evidence for latent ambiguities

But here the court questions whether that distinction even matters and holds courts may consider extrinsic evidence of the testator’s intent to resolve ambiguities in the will that remain despite consideration of the surrounding circumstances, regardless of whether the ambiguities are latent or patent.

Question 8

what is a patent ambiguity

Answer 8

an obvious one; One that is evident from the face of the will – ie saying ‘ i give to you one thousand dollars ($10,000)

Traditionally, Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to clarify a patent ambiguity
The court is confined to the four corners of the will even if as a result the ambiguous devise fails and the property passes by intestacy

Question 9

what is a latent ambiguity

Answer 9

a hidden one; Manifests itself only when the terms of a will are applied to the facts

ie george forman example – i give to my son george xyz – it makes sense on its face but when you try to give it to georege, because he has more than one son named george, its an ambiguity

Question 10

what are the two forms of latent ambiguities

Answer 10

Equivocation : A description for which two or more persons or things fit exactly

no exact fit: a description for which no person or thing fits exactly but two or more persons or things fit partially

Question 11

arnheiter

“to sell my undivided one half interest of premises known as no. 304 Harrison Avenue,” and to use the proceeds of the sale to establish a trust

However the decedent did not own or have any interest in 304 Harrison Ave at her death or at the time her will was executed

She did own an interest at 317 Harrison avenue

Answer 11

no reformation rule wont allow court to correct it

so what does the court do? they erase it!

By erasing the wrong address number, read it, says that creates a latent ambiguity (via equivocation ; each property on Harrison ave fit that description) so they can now use latent ambiguity and permits them to consider extrinsic evidence

Less essential particulars may be erased provided that the remainder of the description cleary fits

Question 12

gibbs

“to Robert J Krause, now of 4708 North 46th street, if he survives me”
Respondent Robert W Krause never lived at that address, alleged he had worked for the decedent for 30 years and that the one listed in the will living at the address was unknown to the Gibbs and that they intended to name him

Whether the court could properly consider such evidence in determining testamentary intent

Answer 12

What are we to do when a will isn’t ambiguous but the individual named is still wrong

If mistaken identification of property or a beneficiary seems to frustrate the testator’s intent, extrinsic evidence is permitted to show whether there was a mistake, and if a mistake is shown to be the cause, the mistaken details will be disregarded.

Question 12

make flow chart for will construction – see slide 6 on class 16 to check

Question 13

what is the upc rule on reformation (ie essentially a reformation harmless error rule) ie you can delete

Answer 13

Allows reformation even if no ambiguity to conform the terms to intention of transfer if its proved by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

its the harmless error rule for the third question (ie what does it say?)

Question 14

1. is it a will
2. should we be looking at it?
   3.?

Answer 14

what does it say

Question 15

whats the theory behind some courts not allowing extrinsic evidence come in to clear up a patent ambiguity?

Answer 15

Its not that hard to avoid patent ambiguities so no extrinsic evidence allowed

Question 16

why are some courts more willing to allow extrinsic evidence in for latent ambiguities?

Answer 16

Latent - one that emerges once we enter the real world; hard to avoid so courts are more willing to allow extrinsic evidence

Question 17

regardless of the type of ambiguity, what is the overarching rule?

Answer 17

But not matter what THE NO REFORMATION RULE APPLIES

Question 18

duke

Irving Duke made a will leaving everything to his wife, Beatrice. If they both died at the same time, his stuff would go to two charities.

Beatrice died before Irving, but he didn’t change his will. When Irving died, the charities asked for his stuff.

But Irving’s nephews, Robert and Seymour Radin, said they should get everything because Irving didn’t die at the same time as Beatrice and there was no plan in the will for what happens if Irving outlived Beatrice.

The charities said they had evidence that Irving wanted them to get his stuff if Beatrice wasn’t alive

ISSUE
Whether the rule against reformation of an unambiguous will for mistake should be considered

Against reformation – less work to do; just read what’s on the page (minimize the work)

For reformation – primary policy argument of getting it right

Answer 18

court decides to adopt their version of the upc reformation

Better to work harder if it means it will increase the accuracy

Reformation of an unambiguous will is permissible if clear and convincing evidence establishes an error in the expression of the testator’s intent and establishes the testator’s actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted.

Question 19

the duke court decided to get rid of the common law no reformation rule in some circumstances, reasoning that we should work harder sometimes to figure out the testaorots intent

the court reasons that we use extrinsic evidence to work harder in other areas of law – what are those areas

Answer 19

We work harder for other docs that are not wills so whats the difference
We consider extrinsic evidence to resolve latent ambiguities
We also use extrinsic evidence via DRR
We also use extrinsic evidence via holographic wills
We use EE to help with lost wills (ie to rebut the presumption)

Question 20

if a court allows extrinsic evidnece in favor of reformation, who has the burden?

Answer 20

the party who is arguing for reformation! pull in extrincis evidence to figure out which part to ignore and which part to read

Question 21

in duke, in favor of its argument that reformation should be applied, the chartites argued that there was a mistake? what was the mistake and what extrinsic evidnce do they use to back it up?

Answer 21

Leaving out the third contingency of his wife dying before him

evidence – It is home made will
He did not have lawyer so he prob didnt know that this outcome would occour because of his slience