Codicil interpretation; In re Estate of Raymond; Patent & latent ambiguity; In re Woodworth Trust; Extrinsic evidence

Agreeing with the trial court that there was a patent ambiguity in the codicil at issue (and arguably also a latent one), the court found no error in its decision to look at the language that was unambiguous and apply it as written given that the available extrinsic evidence did not resolve the patent ambiguity. In her will, decedent (Barker) named respondent-Brault, her niece, as PR, with her other niece, petitioner-Oleksy, as an alternate. But in the codicil, she named Oleksy as PR, and after Barker’s death, Oleksy was appointed without objection. The trial court later removed her as PR for “lack of administration of the estate.” On appeal, she argued that interpretation of the codicil required a finding she was the beneficiary, to the exclusion of Brault, to the residue of the estate. The codicil contained a patent ambiguity as “to whether Barker intended Brault to be removed as a beneficiary of her estate.” The will was clear that Brault “was to receive the residue of Barker’s estate. While the codicil clearly” intended to remove her as PR, it was not clear whether it “also modified the distribution of Barker’s residual estate.” It provided that if Oleksy predeceased Barker, all of Barkley’s property was to go to one of Oleksy’s daughters (L). The codicil did not specifically state “that Oleksy was to receive the residue of Barker’s estate. However, the provision of the codicil leaving all of her property to [L] if Oleksy predeceased Barker creates confusion.” Also adding confusion was a provision “leaving all of Barker’s jewelry and four paintings to Oleksy to share with her children. If” she intended that Oleksy “receive the residue of her estate, there would be no need for a provision leaving Oleksy any specific property[.]” The only available extrinsic evidence to determine Barker’s intent “was the conflicting hearing testimony of Brault and Oleksy.” The trial court found that this did not give it any real guidance to resolve the ambiguity. Applying the codicil’s unambiguous language, Oleksy was to (and did) serve as PR, and she survived Barker, so the triggering event for the property to go to L did not occur. The provisions leaving money to an animal shelter and Barker’s jewelry and four paintings to Oleksy were unambiguous. The court held that the “codicil did not require further interpretation or expansion beyond the specific statements contained therein.” Affirmed.