Beisgen Estate

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating, “[w]here a patent ambiguity exists on the face of the [w]ill and the language is meaningless or senseless or so uncertain as to be unintelligible as written, parol evidence to explain it is not admissible”
• testator’s intent must be determined from face of the will and extrinsic evidence cannot be used as evidence of testator’s intent independent of the written words employed
• testator’s intent must be determined from face of the will and extrinsic evidence cannot be used as evidence of testator's intent independent of the written words employed
• “The dangers inherent in admitting parol evidence to prove a testator’s intention—namely, opening the door to fraud, changing or defeating the testator’s intention . . . make clear the reason for the exclusion of such evidence”
• while ultimately adopting a more restricted definition, noting that “ ‘personal effects,’ in the early Pennsylvania cases which followed the English cases, were given a broad meaning — a meaning sufficiently broad to include all the testator’s personal estate”
• latent ambiguity can be created by extrinsic or collateral circumstances

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).