In re Estate of Cole
Not Provided (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts may consider direct extrinsic evidence of a testator's intent, such as the scrivener's testimony, to resolve a patent ambiguity (an inconsistency apparent on the face of a will). The historical distinction between admitting such evidence for latent versus patent ambiguities is outmoded and no longer serves a useful purpose.
Facts:
- On July 1, 1999, Ruth N. Cole executed a will.
- The will contained a bequest to her friend, Veta J. Vining, stating the amount as "the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($25,000)."
- The attorney who drafted the will, Robert C. Black, III, provided an affidavit explaining the discrepancy was a scrivener's error.
- Black stated he used a "copy and paste" function from another bequest for $200,000 and, while he changed the numerals to Vining's intended bequest of $25,000, he failed to change the corresponding words.
- Vining offered no evidence to contradict the attorney's explanation of the error.
- Ruth N. Cole died on July 8, 1999, making the will operative.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative for the Estate of Ruth N. Cole petitioned the trial court for a construction of the will to determine the amount of a bequest.
- Veta J. Vining, a beneficiary under the will, contested the personal representative's proposed construction.
- The personal representative moved for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit and notes from the will's scrivener.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding the bequest was for $25,000.
- Veta J. Vining (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court properly consider direct evidence of a testator’s intention, specifically the testimony of the will's scrivener, in resolving contradictory provisions appearing on the face of the will?
Opinions:
Majority - Crippen, Judge
Yes, the trial court properly considered direct evidence of the testator's intention. The historical common-law distinction that barred direct evidence of intent to resolve patent ambiguities (those on the face of the document) but allowed it for latent ambiguities is outmoded and should be discarded. The primary judicial goal in construing a will is to effectuate the testator's intent. Modern rules of evidence no longer treat testimony about a deceased person's declarations as inherently unreliable, thus removing the original justification for the patent/latent distinction. When a will contains contradictory language, courts should be able to consider reliable extrinsic evidence, such as the scrivener's testimony, to determine what the testator meant by the words used in the instrument.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes Minnesota law on will interpretation by formally abandoning the long-criticized distinction between patent and latent ambiguities. It prioritizes the actual intent of the testator over rigid, formalistic rules that could lead to unjust results due to simple clerical errors. By allowing courts to consider direct evidence of intent for any ambiguity, the ruling makes it easier to correct scriveners' mistakes and ensure a testator's true wishes are honored. This holding aligns Minnesota with the modern trend in probate law and will likely reduce litigation over obvious drafting errors by allowing for their straightforward resolution through credible extrinsic evidence.
