Under UPC provisions on reformation to correct mistakes, what is the strongest argument against allowing F's extrinsic evidence to override the dispositive provision in a will that originally leaves everything to a spouse who has since died?

• A. The testator did not form the intent to leave the entire estate to F until after the spouse's death.
• B. The extrinsic statements are inadmissible because the will is unambiguous.
• C. The reformation can be used only to correct spelling errors.
• D. Extrinsic evidence is always admissible to show the testator's intent.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that reforming a will under UPC is about correcting a mistake that prevented the instrument from expressing the testator’s actual intent at the time of drafting. The crucial limit is that this correction must reflect the intent the testator had when the will was created, not a new intention formed after a spouse dies. If the testator did not intend to leave everything to the beneficiary until after the spouse’s death, then there’s no contemporaneous mistake to fix—the post-death plan would not justify rewriting the will. Extrinsic evidence can show the testator’s intent, but only to correct mistakes at the time of execution, not to adopt a later, post-execution plan. So the strongest argument against allowing the extrinsic evidence to override the dispositive provision is that the testator did not form the relevant intent at the time the will was drafted. The other options misstate how reformation works or the admissibility of extrinsic evidence.