Estate of Russell
Supreme Court of California
444 P.2d 353 (1968)
Thelma's holographic will left her entire estate to Chester and her already-deceased dog Roxy Russell in what the will's own language established as equal shares, and while Georgia (plaintiff, Thelma's niece and sole heir) offered admissible extrinsic evidence establishing Roxy was in fact a dog who predeceased Thelma (creating a latent ambiguity about the intended beneficiary), Chester (defendant) separately offered his own testimony that Thelma actually intended him to receive the entire estate with an informal understanding he would care for Roxy, evidence the trial court credited to award Chester everything.
Whether, where extrinsic evidence pertaining to the circumstances surrounding creation of a will is offered to shed light on the testator's intended meaning, but that evidence does not give rise to a finding of uncertainty in the terms of the will, extrinsic evidence is still admissible to prove the testator's intended meaning.