Facts
- A testator executed a will devising “my residence at 2615 Cooleemee Street, Raleigh, North Carolina” to his wife for life, with the remainder to his daughter from a prior marriage.
- The will’s residuary clause devised the remainder of the testator’s property to the wife in fee simple.
- The testator owned two adjoining parcels: lot 36, containing the house and street address 2615, and vacant lot 37, separately listed in tax records and sometimes associated with a different street number.
- The wife occupied the property after the testator’s death; later she died leaving her property to her daughter.
- The wife’s daughter claimed lot 37 passed to the wife under the residuary clause and then to her under the wife’s will; the testator’s daughter claimed lot 37 was part of “my residence” and thus passed under the specific devise.
- The wife’s daughter offered an affidavit from the lawyer who drafted the will asserting the testator intended lot 37 to pass under the residuary clause.
- The trial court excluded the affidavit and granted summary judgment quieting title to lots 36 and 37 in the testator’s daughter; the court of appeals reversed; the state supreme court granted review.
Issues
- Whether an affidavit from the drafting attorney recounting the testator’s asserted intent was admissible to resolve a latent ambiguity in the will’s description of “my residence at 2615 Cooleemee Street.”
- Whether, excluding the affidavit, summary judgment was proper on the question whether lot 37 was included within the devise of “my residence.”
Decision
- The court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment.
- The drafting attorney’s affidavit was inadmissible because it offered conclusions and recollections about the testator’s subjective intent rather than objective surrounding circumstances.
- On the admissible record, no genuine issue of material fact existed: “my residence at 2615 Cooleemee Street” included both lot 36 and adjoining lot 37.
- Lot 37 therefore passed under the specific devise (life estate to the wife; remainder to the testator’s daughter), not under the residuary clause.
Legal Principles
- A latent ambiguity arises when will language appears definite on its face but becomes uncertain when applied to external facts.
- Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to cure a latent ambiguity, but only to the extent it explains the language by reference to objective facts and circumstances.
- Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to vary or contradict the will, or to supply what the testator allegedly meant to write but did not.
- Testimony or affidavits reflecting a third party’s impressions or conclusions about the testator’s intent to dispose of property are inadmissible for construing the will.
- Summary judgment is appropriate in a will-construction quiet-title action when the admissible evidence shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the will’s meaning can be determined as a matter of law.
Conclusion
The court held that resolving a latent ambiguity permits evidence about the property and its use, but not a drafting lawyer’s asserted recollection of the testator’s intended distribution; excluding such evidence, the devise of “my residence” encompassed both the house lot and the adjoining lot, supporting summary judgment quieting title in the remainderman.