Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
Doug's will left property to "my niece Brooke, living in Florida." In reality, Doug had a niece named Sunny living in Florida, and a niece named Brooke living in Texas. Extrinsic evidence showed that Doug had a much closer relationship with Sunny than with Brooke.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Courts allow the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguities, not to rewrite the will. On its face, there does not appear to be an ambiguity. Clearly, Doug wanted to leave his property to his niece, he just was confused as to the name. The extrinsic evidence showed that Doug had a much closer relationship with Sunny and she lived in Florida. Accordingly, the court can strike the incorrect name, Brooke, and the property will pass to 'my niece living in Florida.' See, e.g., In re Donnellan's Estate, 164 Cal. 14 (1912).
Incorrect! Courts allow the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguities, not to rewrite the will. On its face, there does not appear to be an ambiguity. Clearly, Doug wanted to leave his property to his niece, he just was confused as to the name. The extrinsic evidence showed that Doug had a much closer relationship with Sunny and she lived in Florida. Accordingly, the court can strike the incorrect name, Brooke, and the property will pass to 'my niece living in Florida.' See, e.g., In re Donnellan's Estate, 164 Cal. 14 (1912).
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Jesse's will devised "my former home located at 1215 Tequila Parkway." In reality, Jesse's home was located at 1512 Tequila Parkway. Extrinsic evidence showed that there was no 1215 Tequila Parkway and Jesse's address in other areas of the will, the phone book and mail was 1512 Tequila Parkway. The court will reject the devise and the property will pass pursuant to the intestacy statutes
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Courts allow the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguities, not to rewrite the will. On its face, there does not appear to be an ambiguity. Clearly, Jesse wanted to leave his property on Tequila Parkway, he just was confused as to the address or there was a typographical error. The extrinsic evidence showed that the correct address was 1512 Tequila Parkway. Accordingly, the court will uphold the devise, striking1215 Tequila Parkway and substituting 1512 Tequila Parkway. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Armstrong, 158 N.E. 356 (Ill. 1927).
Incorrect! Courts allow the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain ambiguities, not to rewrite the will. On its face, there does not appear to be an ambiguity. Clearly, Jesse wanted to leave his property on Tequila Parkway, he just was confused as to the address or there was a typographical error. The extrinsic evidence showed that the correct address was 1512 Tequila Parkway. Accordingly, the court will uphold the devise, striking1215 Tequila Parkway and substituting 1512 Tequila Parkway. See, e.g., Armstrong v. Armstrong, 158 N.E. 356 (Ill. 1927).
Question 3
Jessica's will bequeaths "the sum of five hundred dollars ($5,000) to my brother Herbert." Under the traditional view, parol evidence would be admissible to clarify this patent ambiguity.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Under the traditional view, parol evidence was not admissible to clarify or explain a patent ambiguity. Unlike the situation involving a latent ambiguity, where extrinsic evidence establishes the ambiguity, in the case of a patent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence is not necessary to show the ambiguity. As such, since extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show the ambiguity, it is not admissible to cure the ambiguity. The result is that the gift to Herbert will fail, since the will does not clearly identify which amount Jessica intended to give him.
Incorrect! Under the traditional view, parol evidence was not admissible to clarify or explain a patent ambiguity. Unlike the situation involving a latent ambiguity, where extrinsic evidence establishes the ambiguity, in the case of a patent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence is not necessary to show the ambiguity. As such, since extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show the ambiguity, it is not admissible to cure the ambiguity. The result is that the gift to Herbert will fail, since the will does not clearly identify which amount Jessica intended to give him.