Which argument supports admitting extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity in a will when the dispositive language is unclear?

• A. Extrinsic evidence should be admissible to resolve any ambiguity, be it patent or latent.
• B. Extrinsic evidence is never admissible to interpret a will.
• C. Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if the ambiguity is latent, not patent.
• D. Extrinsic evidence is admissible only after a judge determines the will is invalid.

Answer: (A)

When a will’s dispositive language is unclear, the court can admit extrinsic evidence to interpret what the testator intended. The goal in will construction is to honor the testator’s actual intent, not enforce a rigid, overly literal reading that creates an unfair or unintended result. Extrinsic evidence helps by bringing in statements the testator made, the surrounding circumstances at the time the will was made, earlier drafts, or the relationships among beneficiaries. This is useful for both types of ambiguity: ones that appear on the face of the will and ones that arise from external facts. By allowing this evidence, the court can resolve ambiguity in a way that reflects the testator’s true plan for distributing assets. The other options are too absolute or restrictive—extrinsic evidence isn’t categorically barred, it isn’t limited to latent ambiguities, and interpretation isn’t contingent on first finding the will invalid.