- 29 -
to determine whether Mrs. Rapp was entitled under the
decedent's will to receive annual distributions of all of
the income from the testamentary trust.
Under California law, the nature of the interest given
by a testator to his or her surviving spouse is determined
in accordance with the testator's intent, as determined by
a construction of the language used in the will. E.g.,
Gill v. Stone (In re Estate of Dodge), 491 P.2d 385 (Cal.
1971); Hembree v. Quinn (In re Estate of Russell), 444
P.2d 353 (Cal. 1968); Kime v. Barnard (Estate of Kime),
193 Cal. Rptr. 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983); Talbot v.
Bachelor (Estate of Casey), 198 Cal. Rptr. 170 (Cal. Ct.
App. 1982); Cullinan v. Dunne (Estate of Lindner), 149 Cal.
Rptr. 331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). Evidence concerning the
circumstances surrounding the testator's execution of the
will, so-called extrinsic evidence, is generally admissible
"to determine whether a seemingly clear instrument or term
is actually ambiguous." Hoover v. Hartman, 186 Cal. Rptr.
669, 673 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982); see also Saleen v. Aulman
(In re Estate of Taff), 133 Cal. Rptr. 737, 740-741 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1976). If extrinsic evidence renders the language
of the will susceptible of two or more meanings, then the
extrinsic evidence can be used to resolve the ambiguity.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011