Court Opinion

ID: 9674223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:25:12.281329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.205234
License: Public Domain

CALVERT, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the judgment rendered. I do not agree with some of the broad lan*11guage appearing in the court’s opinion, which is not necessary to the decision.
In the context of explaining when extrinsic evidence may be looked to in the interpretation of written instruments, the court states “ * * * and words always need interpretation. * * * A will is a unilateral instrument, and the court is concerned only with the intention of the testator as expressed in the document. The sense in which the words were used by the testator is the ultimate criterion, and the court may always receive and consider evidence concerning the situation of the testator, circumstances existing when the will was executed, and other material facts which will enable the court to place itself in the testator’s position at the time. * * ” (Emphasis mine.)
I would agree that extrinsic evidence may be introduced to explain ambiguous provisions or provisions of doubtful meaning in a will, or to resolve latent ambiguities which may result from application of the terms of a will. I do not agree that extrinsic evidence is admissible or may be considered when the wording of a will is clear, plain and unambiguous. For example, if a married person’s will should provide, “I devise and bequeath all of my separate property to my son, A, and all of my interest in the community property owned by my wife and me to my son, B,” I do not think extrinsic evidence would be admissible, or might be considered, to show that the testator did not intend to dispose of the property in the manner which his will so plainly and clearly disposed of it. The Constitution and statutes so clearly define separate and community property that the terms as used by the testator cannot have other and different meanings than those ascribed to them in law. In this situation, the words are not subject to interpretation and the court would not be authorized to receive and consider evidence concerning the situation of the testator, or other extrinsic evidence, and from such evidence give the words a different meaning. Many other such examples could be imagined.