## Facts

- Ruth N. Cole executed a will on July 1, 1999, and died on July 8, 1999.
- The will included a specific bequest to Veta J. Vining stated as “the sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($25,000),” creating a conflict between words and numerals.
- The personal representative petitioned for construction of the will and sought summary judgment to construe the gift as $25,000.
- The drafting attorney submitted an affidavit and file notes stating he copied a $200,000 bequest clause for another legatee, changed the beneficiary name, changed the numerals to $25,000 per Cole’s instruction, but failed to change the written words from “two hundred thousand dollars” to “twenty-five thousand dollars.”
- Vining submitted no evidence contradicting the scrivener’s account and did not request to cross-examine the scrivener.
- The probate court found a patent ambiguity, admitted the scrivener’s evidence, and construed the bequest as $25,000.
- Vining appealed, arguing extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to resolve a patent ambiguity.

## Issues

1. Whether a will provision containing an internal contradiction between written words and numerals is a patent ambiguity.
2. Whether a court may consider extrinsic evidence, including a drafting attorney’s affidavit and notes, to resolve a patent ambiguity and determine the testator’s intent.
3. Whether summary judgment is proper when the evidence of the drafting error and intended amount is undisputed.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the bequest was patently ambiguous because the will’s text and numerals conflicted on its face.
- The court held the probate court properly considered direct evidence of the testator’s intent, including the scrivener’s affidavit and file notes, to resolve the contradiction.
- Because the extrinsic evidence was uncontroverted, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and construing the bequest as $25,000 on summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- The primary objective in construing a will is to carry out the testator’s intent as expressed and, when necessary, as clarified by admissible evidence.
- An internal inconsistency in a will provision (such as conflicting words and numerals for a dollar amount) creates an ambiguity requiring construction.
- Extrinsic evidence may be used to resolve an ambiguity that already exists on the face of the will, including credible evidence showing a scrivener’s error.
- The traditional rule limiting extrinsic evidence for patent ambiguities does not bar consideration of reliable, specific proof of intent when the will’s language is contradictory.
- Summary judgment is appropriate in will-construction litigation when material facts about the ambiguity and the relevant extrinsic evidence are undisputed and the remaining question is legal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed construing the bequest to Vining as $25,000, holding that when a will contains a facial contradiction between words and numerals, the court may rely on uncontroverted scrivener evidence to resolve the patent ambiguity and implement the testator’s intent.


In re Estate of Cole, 621 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)