Estate of Taff
63 Cal. App. 3d 319, 133 Cal. Rptr. 737 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California courts may admit extrinsic evidence, including specific instructions to the will's drafter and other declarations, to identify and resolve a latent ambiguity in a will's terms, even if the language appears clear on its face, to ascertain the testator's true intent.
Facts:
- Pearl Taff instructed her attorney, T.N. Petersen, to prepare her will, stating that the residue of her estate was to go to her sister, Margaret M. Aulman, or to "her own family, her own blood relatives" if Margaret predeceased her.
- Pearl Taff also conveyed to Petersen that she believed she had made adequate provision for her predeceased husband Harry C. Taff's family through specific gifts to his sisters and felt no obligation to his other blood relatives, intending no gifts for them.
- Six days before signing her will, Pearl Taff wrote a letter to her sister Margaret Aulman stating that if Margaret predeceased her, the residue of the estate would pass "to her heirs."
- Pearl Taff signed her will on February 28, 1961, which included a residuary clause stating that if Margaret M. Aulman did not survive the decedent, the residue would pass "to my heirs in accordance with the laws of intestate succession."
- Margaret M. Aulman predeceased Pearl Taff on January 9, 1966.
- Pearl Taff died childless on January 27, 1975.
- Appellants, Ruby Saleen et al., are relatives of Pearl Taff's predeceased husband, Harry C. Taff.
- Respondents, Clarence Aulman et al., are blood relatives of Pearl Taff, including children of her predeceased sister Margaret M. Aulman and a daughter of another predeceased sister.
Procedural Posture:
- Pearl Taff's will was admitted to probate, and Clarence Aulman was appointed executor.
- Appellants (Ruby Saleen et al.), relatives of Pearl Taff's predeceased husband, petitioned the probate court (trial court/court of first instance) to determine heirship, requesting an order that they were intended heirs and entitled to a portion of the residuary estate.
- Clarence Aulman, as executor for respondents (Pearl Taff's blood relatives), filed an answer, alleging that "my heirs" in the will referred only to Pearl Taff's blood relatives.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment in the heirship proceeding.
- The trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that Pearl Taff intended the residue of her estate to go to the three children of her deceased sister, Margaret Aulman.
- Summary judgment was entered for respondents, and appellants' petition for heirship was dismissed.
- Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal from the summary judgment to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth District (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by admitting extrinsic evidence, such as declarations to the will's attorney and a personal letter, to prove a testator's intent when the will's language, specifically "my heirs," appears clear and unambiguous on its face, in order to determine who should inherit the residuary estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Franson, J.
No, the trial court did not err in admitting extrinsic evidence to determine the testator's intent, even when the will's language appears unambiguous on its face, because such evidence can reveal and resolve a latent ambiguity. The court explained that California law, particularly following Estate of Russell, has abrogated the strict "plain meaning" rule. Under Russell, extrinsic evidence of the circumstances surrounding the will's creation is admissible to ascertain the testator's meaning, and if it reveals that the will's provisions are reasonably susceptible to two or more meanings, an ambiguity arises, permitting further extrinsic evidence to prove the intended meaning. Here, Pearl Taff's declarations to her attorney, T.N. Petersen, stating her desire for the residue to go to her "own blood relatives" and her explicit intention to exclude her husband's family beyond specific gifts, along with her letter to her sister, exposed a latent ambiguity in the term "my heirs." This extrinsic evidence was properly considered both to create the ambiguity and to resolve it. The court clarified that Probate Code section 105's general prohibition on oral declarations of intent does not apply to specific instructions given to the will's scrivener for resolving latent ambiguities. Furthermore, the presumption that technical words should be taken in their technical sense (Probate Code section 106) is subordinate to the primary goal of effectuating the testator's true intent. Since the extrinsic evidence was not in conflict regarding Pearl Taff's intention to exclude Harry C. Taff's relatives, the trial court correctly determined that appellants had no right to the residuary estate as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the modern approach to will interpretation in California, moving away from a rigid "plain meaning" rule towards a more flexible method that prioritizes the testator's actual intent through extrinsic evidence. By allowing extrinsic evidence to demonstrate and resolve latent ambiguities, even when the will's text appears clear, the decision provides courts with a powerful tool to prevent unjust outcomes that might arise from strictly literal interpretations. It emphasizes that statutory presumptions and rules of construction for wills are aids to discerning intent, not barriers to it, potentially making wills litigation more complex but also more likely to achieve the testator's true wishes.
