Opinion ID: 2613979
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the testator's intent is determinative of the resolution of any ambiguities found in a will

Text: Once an ambiguity is identified in a will, the trial judge must resolve the uncertainty by determining and giving effect to the testator's intent [27] at the time of the will's execution. [28] When the ambiguity under the court's scrutiny is latent, as is the case here, it is permissible to consider parol evidence [29] to show the facts and circumstances surrounding the testator and his relationships to those named as beneficiaries. [30] The parol or extrinsic evidence admitted at nisi prius cannot be used to show what the testator intended to say but rather it must demonstrate what the testator intended by the language used in the will. [31] At the evidentiary hearing conducted on November 19, 1990 the trial court received extrinsic evidence to resolve the latent ambiguity in Eversole's will. The court properly excluded evidence relative to periods of time subsequent to the will's execution. [32] Unless judgments and orders in cases of equitable cognizance are clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, they will not be disturbed because it is possible to draw other conclusions from the evidence adduced. [33] After reviewing the record, we find there is adequate proof supporting the trial court's findings that: (1) Eversole was an intelligent person, a shrewd and knowledgeable businessman, who was completely cognizant of his personal fortune; (2) he understood the meaning of the word maximum used by him in the will; (3) he could have used terminology limiting his estate's contribution to the marital deduction trust but did not do so; and (4) by the word maximum he sought to secure the greatest tax deduction achievable through his estate's contribution to the marital deduction trust. It is not unreasonable for the trial judge to find that a man of Eversole's means would desire to pass to his surviving family the maximum he can protect from the tax authorities. Since the trial judge's decision is not clearly contrary to the weight of the properly admitted evidence and is consistent with the text of the will, it is our duty not to disturb the nisi prius order finding that Eversole intended to make the maximum marital deduction allowed under the I.R.C. to his widow's trust, i.e., the deduction available at his death.