Section 18.21 Ambiguities

• Library: Estate Administration 2014 Supp

C. (§18.21) Ambiguities

Ambiguities arise when two or more constructions of the document are plausible. The fact that parties disagree on the interpretation of a will does not, by itself, render the will ambiguous. Switzer v. Mercantile Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 932 S.W.2d 893, 896 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996); Boatmen’s Trust Co. v. Sugden, 827 S.W.2d 249, 254 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). To determine whether a will is ambiguous so that the court can apply rules of construction, the court must look to the language used in the instrument itself rather than the result of the distribution plan. Ittner v. United Mo. Bank of St. Louis, N.A., 924 S.W.2d 40, 42 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996); Boone County Nat’l Bank v. Edson, 760 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Mo. banc 1988). Whether a will is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to determine, and the reviewing court is free to make its own determination. Ittner, 924 S.W.2d at 42; Edson, 760 S.W.2d at 111; see also In re Estate of Beare, 880 S.W.2d 562, 565 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Sugden, 827 S.W.2d at 254.

A “patent ambiguity” occurs when the meaning or donative intent is uncertain on the face of the instrument. Ittner, 924 S.W.2d at 42; Sugden, 827 S.W.2d at 254. Contradictory provisions of a will can create a patent ambiguity. If provisions of a will contradict each other, those provisions that are most congruent with the testator’s wishes as gathered from the entire will should prevail. In re Estate of Just, 618 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). If construction of the will would make one of the contradictory provisions obsolete, the court may apply the rule that, when possible, no part of a will should perish by construction. In re Estate of Katich, 565 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981). One or the other of two apparently inconsistent provisions in a will should not be invalidated if both are reconcilable with the general intention of the testator as determined from the language of the four corners of the will. Friedman v. Marshall, 876 S.W.2d 745, 753 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994).

In In re Estate of Strick, 934 S.W.2d 312, 315 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996), the appellate court reversed the probate court’s decision that the term “items of property” was ambiguous. As demonstrated in Strick, the appellate court makes its own determination as to whether an ambiguity exists because that issue is a question of law. Ittner, 924 S.W.2d at 42. In Creviston v. Aspen Products, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005), the court reviewed ambiguity in a document...