Opinion ID: 2218026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ambiguity of the Will and the Trust.

Text: Keeping in mind the settled principles, we turn to the question of whether the instruments before us are ambiguous. This must be our first inquiry. In re Estate of Kiel, 357 N.W.2d 628, 631 (Iowa 1984). We begin with the trust established by Lawrence's will. Robert claims that the option established in Lawrence's will is patently ambiguous because it does not set out (1) how many acres were involved, or (2) Lawrence's exact interest in the two tracts. The question of the number of acres involved is not a serious problem. The district court could take judicial notice that each tract contained forty acres. In any event, the parties agree each tract contains forty acres. Even if the number of acres were ambiguous, such an ambiguity would permit only extrinsic evidence which would clarify the true number of acres in the two tracts. Stated succinctly, the terms of the trust permit Robert to purchase all of the right, title and interest in the two tracts which Lawrence held and which are now held in trust. This language is not patently ambiguous, despite the fact that the nature of Lawrence's interest in the tracts is not identified. Patent ambiguity occurs when the meaning of a will is, on its face, uncertain, doubtful or obscure. In re Lepley's Estate, 235 Iowa 664, 670, 17 N.W.2d 526, 529 (1945). Robert has an option to buy his father's former interest in the two tracts, whatever that interest might have been. The price is set at $500 per acre for one tract and $400 per acre for the other. Since there are forty acres in each tract, the total price for Robert to purchase Lawrence's interest in both tracts is $36,000. Robert urges that the will contains a latent ambiguity in that Lawrence and Emma held the two tracts as tenants in common. When the language of a will is clear on its face, but some outside matter renders the meaning obscure or uncertain, a latent ambiguity exists. Bankers Trust Co. v. Allen, 257 Iowa 938, 944, 135 N.W.2d 607, 611 (1965); In re Estate of Eickholt, 365 N.W.2d 44, 47 (Iowa App.1985). Since the will refers to my interest, Robert suggests the calculation of the total purchase price is limited to the testator's separate interest in the real estate, that is, an undivided 20 acres in each 40-acre tract. This argument misapprehends the basic nature of the tenancy in common ownership interest. In a tenancy in common, each tenant has a separate, distinct and undivided interest in all of the property so held. 4A R. Powell & P. Rohan, Powell on Real Property ¶ 601[1], at 50-3 (1991) [hereinafter Powell & Rohan]; 4 G. Thompson, Commentaries on the Modern Law of Real Property § 1793, at 137 (1979) [hereinafter Thompson]. No tenant in common can claim any particular portion of the property as his own, to the exclusion of the other tenants; each is entitled to possession and use of the whole. Powell & Rohan at ¶ 603[1], 50-14; Thompson at § 1793, 137. Nor may any tenant in common, as against his co-tenants, convey to a third party any specific portion of the property. Thompson at § 1798, 152. The quality of the cotenants' estates may be different, the shares may be unequal, and the modes of acquisition may be unlike; the only unity is that of possession. In re Appeal of Delashmutt, 234 Iowa 1255, 1259, 15 N.W.2d 619, 622 (1944). The interest of a tenant in common may be transferred, devised or encumbered without the consent of the remaining cotenants. Thompson at § 1795, 145. In such situations, the person acquiring the interest becomes a tenant in common with the remaining tenants. Id. at § 1798, 151; Powell & Rohan at ¶ 606[4], 50-38. Lawrence Rogers held title to the two tracts as a tenant in common. He was entitled to alienate his interest in all eighty acres however he saw fit. As set out in his will, he chose to offer his son an option to buy his interest in the two tracts for the price of $500 per acre for one tract and $400 per acre for the other. His will unambiguously establishes a price of $36,000 to purchase his one-half undivided interest in the two tracts. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the two wills were not contractual. Emma remained free at all times to alienate her one-half interest in the property. Either prior to or following Lawrence's death, she could have sold her interest in the property or given it away inter vivos. She could have devised her interest to someone other than Robert or allowed it to pass by intestacy. Had she done any of the preceding, Robert would still have been entitled to purchase Lawrence's one-half interest for $36,000. In such an event, Robert would have held the property as a tenant in common with the person or persons who acquired Emma's interest. This declaratory judgment action was tried in equity. At trial, extrinsic evidence was introduced, subject to objection, suggesting that the true intent of both testators was to allow Robert to purchase both of their interests in the two tracts for a total of $36,000. Since we find that there was no ambiguity, we do not consider this evidence. The testators are presumed to have known the effect of the language in their wills. In re Estate of Staab, 173 N.W.2d 866, 872 (Iowa 1970). This presumption is especially true where, as here, the will is drawn up by an experienced scrivener. 80 Am.Jur.2d Wills § 1179, at 294 (1975). However clearly an intention not expressed in the will may be proved by extrinsic evidence, the rule of law requiring wills to be in writing stands as an insuperable barrier against carrying the intention thus proved into execution. In re Estate of Kalouse, 282 N.W.2d 98, 104 (Iowa 1979) (emphasis in original). When the terms of a will or trust are unambiguous, we are precluded from interpreting the terms. Kiel, 357 N.W.2d at 630. We will not, from oral testimony, make a will the testator perhaps intended to, but in fact did not, make. In re Estate of Winslow, 259 Iowa 1316, 1323, 147 N.W.2d 814, 818 (1967).