- 30 -
Hembree v. Quinn, supra at 361. However, if the extrinsic
evidence does not render the will ambiguous, the extrinsic
evidence is disregarded and the plain language of the will
is relied upon to determine the testator's intent. Estate
of Heim v. Commissioner, 914 F.2d at 1325.
Irrespective of whether extrinsic evidence is
considered, the objective of the courts in California is to
determine the testator's intent from the language used and
not to write a new will for the testator. In Talbot v.
Batchelor, supra at 172 the court stated as follows:
Further, whether or not resort is had to
extrinsic evidence, the court must determine the
intent of the testator from the language used.
The court in interpreting the will may not decide
what the testator should have done or even that
the testator desired to accomplish a particular
objective. The court determines only what the
testator did do by the manner in which he
expressed himself. * * * In short, the court,
under the guides of interpretation, may not write
a new will for the testator.
We note that the California Probate Code provides
special rules for a "marital deduction gift", defined as
"a transfer of property that is intended to qualify for
the marital deduction." Cal. Probate Code sec. 21520(b)
(West 1991). For this purpose, the "marital deduction" is
defined as "the federal estate tax deduction allowed for
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011