Parol evidence was also not admissible to show true consideration. The true consideration exception to the rule is only applicable to clarify ambiguous agreements. Furthermore, the appellants argued that parol evidence should be introduced to show the appellee breached a condition subsequent. The appellate court held that the parol evidence rule is admissible to show conditions precedent which relate to the existence of a contract, but not conditions subsequent which nullify or modify an existing contract. Based on the foregoing, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.
Power of appointment is exclusive unless donor expressly manifests contrary intent.
The testator gave her husband a testamentary power of appointment, instructing him to divide the trust assets among her lineal descendants as he saw fit. The husband excluded one of the testator's daughters. Both sides agreed that this was a special power of appointment to appoint among the testator's descendants. The disagreement was whether the power was exclusive, i.e., could the donor exclude persons in the class. The appellate court affirmed the lower court and held that a power of appointment is exclusive unless the donor expressly manifests a contrary intent.