In re Estate of Duke
Supreme Court of California
352 P.3d 863 (2015)
Irving Duke's will left everything to his wife Beatrice, with a gift-over to two charities only if he and Beatrice died simultaneously; Beatrice predeceased Irving without the will being updated to name a new executor, and when Irving died with no spouse or children, the two charities (plaintiffs) petitioned for probate. Robert and Seymour Radin (the Radins) (defendants), sons of Irving's predeceased sister, argued they were Irving's sole intestate heirs because the will's simultaneous-death clause never actually triggered (Irving didn't predecease Beatrice, nor did they die simultaneously) and the will was silent on what should happen if Irving survived Beatrice; the charities offered extrinsic evidence that Irving actually intended the charities to inherit whenever Beatrice wasn't alive to take, and the probate court granted the Radins summary judgment, finding the will unambiguous and refusing to consider that evidence.
Whether an unambiguous will may be reformed, using extrinsic evidence, to correct a drafting mistake and give effect to the testator's actual specific intent, when the will's plain language would otherwise produce an unintended result contrary to what the testator meant.