- 15 -
of attorney); Coulter v. Portland Trust Co., 26 P. 565, 569 (Or.
1891) (interpreting a limited power of attorney), it is equally
well established that parol evidence may be used to interpret
those powers actually given, see Wade v. Northup, supra at 457
(“we may resort to ‘the circumstances under which it was made
* * *’ so that the court may be placed in the position of those
whose language it is interpreting”); Coulter v. Portland Trust
Co., supra at 569; see also Or. Rev. Stat. secs. 41.740, 42.230
(1999).11
Applying Oregon law, we hold that we properly may consider
the testimony of petitioner’s witnesses as evidence of the
circumstances under which the powers were executed or to
interpret an ambiguity in their terms; however, we may not use
the testimony to enlarge the authority granted to Ms. Thompson in
the powers of attorney. In accordance with these holdings, we
admit the testimony in question.
Interpreting the Powers of Attorney
Section 2038(a) provides that a decedent’s gross estate
includes any interest in property transferred by the decedent for
11 Or. Rev. Stat. sec. 42.230 (1999) provides:
In the construction of an instrument, the office
of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what
is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to
insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been
inserted; and where there are several provisions or
particulars, such construction is, if possible, to be
adopted as will give effect to all.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011