Traditionally, many courts that follow the plain meaning rule would not admit extrinsic evidence to resolve patent ambiguities.

• A. It is never admissible for patent ambiguities.
• B. It is always admissible for patent ambiguities.
• C. It is not admitted for patent ambiguities in many jurisdictions.
• D. It is admitted only if the entire will is invalid.

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is how the plain meaning rule treats patent ambiguities and the use of extrinsic evidence. Under the plain meaning approach, courts interpret the will strictly from its words, so when an ambiguity is visible on the face of the instrument (a patent ambiguity), extrinsic evidence is generally not used to change or clarify that meaning. This is why, historically, many jurisdictions following the plain meaning rule do not admit extrinsic evidence to resolve patent ambiguities. Extrinsic evidence is more often considered for latent ambiguities—where the language is clear but its application is uncertain—and to address issues like scrivener’s errors in some limited circumstances. So the statement is accurate: extrinsic evidence is not admitted to resolve patent ambiguities in many jurisdictions.