## Facts

- Richards Haskell Emerson executed a will in 1960 creating trusts that named seven charitable remainder beneficiaries (the “1960 charities”).
- In a 1969 codicil, Emerson deleted the 1960 charities and substituted eleven different charitable remainder beneficiaries (the “1969 charities”).
- In 1975, Emerson sought tax-driven revisions so the trusts would qualify as charitable annuity trusts for federal estate tax purposes.
- Emerson’s bank trust officer relayed the request to Emerson’s attorney, who drafted a second codicil making the tax changes.
- The 1975 codicil also reinstated the 1960 charities as beneficiaries in two trust provisions, displacing the 1969 charities in those provisions.
- Emerson executed the 1975 codicil with the required testamentary formalities.
- After Emerson’s death, the Probate Court admitted the will and both codicils to probate over the 1969 charities’ objection.
- The 1969 charities claimed the reinstatement of the 1960 charities was a scrivener’s error and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence (including testimony from the drafter and trust officer) to prevent probate of the contested provisions.
- The Superior Court, on appeal from probate, affirmed and excluded extrinsic evidence of scrivener’s mistake in the validity proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether extrinsic evidence of a scrivener’s mistake is admissible in a proceeding determining the validity of a will or codicil to defeat probate of unambiguous testamentary language.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment.
- Extrinsic evidence of a scrivener’s mistake was not admissible in a probate proceeding to determine the validity of a testamentary instrument.
- The second codicil was properly admitted to probate as written, including the provisions reinstating the 1960 charities.

## Legal Principles

- In a validity proceeding, courts determine whether the executed instrument is a valid will or codicil; they do not reform clear testamentary language based on alleged drafting mistakes.
- A will or codicil generally cannot be reformed to correct a scrivener’s error to conform the document to the testator’s asserted but unexpressed intent.
- Extrinsic evidence may be used in limited circumstances to construe ambiguous language, but it may not be used to nullify or rewrite unambiguous provisions on a claim of mistake.
- Enforcing execution formalities and the written terms of an unambiguous instrument serves certainty and limits fraud in post-death disputes.

## Conclusion

The court held that alleged scrivener error cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence in a probate validity appeal to override unambiguous codicil language; the codicil, formally executed, controlled and was admitted to probate as drafted.


Conn. Junior Republic v. Sharon Hosp., 188 Conn. 1, 448 A.2d 190 (Conn. 1982)