Estate of Lyons

California Court of Appeal Dec 13, 1939 No. Civ. 11227Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to reform a will on the grounds of mistake, as a testator's intent must be determined solely from the language used in the instrument.

Issues

Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to resolve an alleged ambiguity in a will when the petitioner claims the testator made a mistake in identifying a legatee.
Whether a court may reform a will to correct a mistake or inadvertence in the language used by the testator.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule in the construction and interpretation of wills is fundamental that there can be no reformation of the instrument on the ground of mistake, accident, or surprise.”

“A mistake in a will therefore cannot be shown by parol evidence.”

“Nor is such evidence admissible to explain a pure mistake in a will, unless the language of the will itself furnishes the basis of the correction.”

[93]

NOURSE, P. J.

The controversy in this proceeding arises between two legatees under the will of Daniel Lyons, each of whom is named Cornelius Lyons. The appellant is a first cousin and the respondent a second cousin of the deceased. Appellant’s statement of the issues involved given under rule VIII of the Supreme Court we quote in full: “Extrinsic evidence is admissible where the provisions of decedent’s codicil contain a latent ambiguity in that extrinsic facts reveal an uncertainty as to the identity of a residuary legatee named Cornelius Lyons, there being two persons of that name neither of whom exactly answers the declarations and descriptions of the codicil.

“Extrinsic evidence likewise is admissible to ascertain the identity of such residuary legatee where the name and description contained in the codicil apply substantially to both parties. ’ ’

The portions of the will which are the root of the controversy read:

“SEVENTH: I give, devise and bequeath to my cousin, Daniel Lyons, Cornelius Lyons and Catherine Schultz, children of John Lyons and Mary Lyons of Eighteenth and Church streets, San Francisco, the sum of One Thousand ($1000.00) Dollars each;

“FOURTEENTH: I hereby nominate and appoint Cornelius Lyons of 630-llth Avenue, San Francisco, and Dennis Kelly, of 641-8th Avenue, San Francisco, executors of this my last will and testament to serve without bonds ...”

In a codicil executed four years later the testator revoked a special bequest made in paragraph fifth of his will and created a trust in favor of his brother with the stipulation that: “Upon the termination of this trust the entire principal of the trust estate then held by the trustee shall vest free from any trust in and go and be distributed by the trustee to my cousin, Cornelius Lyons mentioned in Paragraph Seventh of my said last will and testament and if he be dead then to his children and heirs at law, share and share alike, such heirs at law taking by right of representation;”

In due course of administration, partial distribution was made to the special legatees named in the will including the “cousin” of the testator named in paragraph seventh, the respondent herein. No objection to such distribution was

Estate of Lyons

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief