-

should not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator meant.

o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
o
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
o
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

o
o

CA: loshould not look at extrinsic/parole evidence to determine what testator

meant.
E.g., testator left estate to heirs at law: JDX has specific meaning (intestate heirs). Extrinsic
evidence indicates testator meant to give it to cousins, but her aging aunt got it under plain
meaning rule.
EXCEPTIONS:

Ambiguity: court will not look to extrinsic evidence to determine whether there was
an ambiguity; must argue from the text of the will.

CA: lo