A well-drafted will is clear, specific, and accounts for changing circumstances. But not all wills are well-drafted — and even careful testators cannot always anticipate every situation that might arise between when a will is signed and when they die. When the language of a will could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, the will is considered ambiguous, and the court must resolve the ambiguity before the estate can be properly distributed.
Seven Examples of Ambiguous Will Provisions
- A bequest of real estate that was sold before death. If a testator left “my house at 123 Main Street” to a specific heir but sold that house years before dying, the bequest may lapse or be void. Courts must determine whether the testator intended the bequest to apply to any replacement property or whether the legacy simply failed.
- A bequest of personal property no longer owned at death. Similar issue with tangible personal property — jewelry, artwork, a vehicle — that was given away, sold, or destroyed before the testator died.
- A bequest to a minor child with no age qualification. Some bequests are meant to be held until a child reaches adulthood, but an ambiguously worded will may not specify this, creating questions about whether a tutor or guardian must receive the inheritance on the child’s behalf.
- A bequest of a financial account that no longer exists. Bank accounts change. A specific bequest of “my savings account at XYZ Bank” may be void if that account was closed and the funds moved elsewhere.
- A bequest to someone who predeceased the testator. When a named beneficiary dies before the testator, the legacy typically lapses unless the anti-lapse statute or alternative beneficiary provisions apply. Ambiguities arise when the will’s language is unclear about whether the bequest should pass to the deceased legatee’s heirs.
- Language that could describe more than one potential beneficiary. A bequest to “my nephew John” when there are two nephews named John creates ambiguity about which person the testator meant to benefit.
- A gift of an asset the testator did not fully own. A testator who bequeaths “the lakehouse” without accounting for the fact that the lakehouse was community property owned half by the surviving spouse creates interpretive questions about what the testator intended to leave.
How Louisiana Courts Resolve Ambiguity
Louisiana law provides that the testator’s intent controls the interpretation of a will. When the words are clear, no further inquiry is needed — the plain language controls. When the words are unclear, the court may consider extrinsic evidence — circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, the testator’s relationships, statements made to the attorney who drafted the will — to determine what the testator most likely intended.
Protecting Your Inheritance When a Will Is Ambiguous
If you are an heir and the estate’s distribution is unclear because of ambiguous will language, your interests may not align with those of other heirs or the succession representative. An attorney can evaluate the ambiguity, advise you on how the court is likely to interpret the will, and represent your position if the interpretation is disputed.
Contact Scott Law Group — Estate Counsel or call (504) 264-1057 to discuss an ambiguous will or any Louisiana succession dispute.
This article provides general information about Louisiana succession law and is not legal advice for your specific situation.
Common Sources of Ambiguity in Louisiana Wills
Louisiana law distinguishes between two types of ambiguity in wills. Patent ambiguity is apparent on the face of the document — the will’s language is internally inconsistent or unclear without reference to any outside facts. Latent ambiguity exists when the will’s language appears clear, but becomes unclear when applied to the actual facts — for example, when a testator leaves “my blue Chevrolet” and the estate turns out to contain two blue Chevrolets.
The most common sources of ambiguity in Louisiana wills include imprecise identification of property, imprecise identification of beneficiaries, and conditional provisions with unclear triggering events. “My house” does not clearly identify the property if the testator owned multiple houses, a house and a camp, or sold the original house and bought a new one after executing the will. “My daughter Sarah” creates no ambiguity if there is one daughter named Sarah — but it does if two daughters share that name, or if the testator had an adopted daughter and a biological daughter both named Sarah.
Residuary clauses can be another source of unexpected complexity. A will that makes several specific legacies and then leaves “everything else” to a named person generally works as intended. But if the specific legacies use imprecise language that partially overlaps with the residue, disputes can arise about which assets fall under which provision. Survivorship language causes similar problems: a provision that a legacy passes to the “surviving” beneficiary may be interpreted differently when two beneficiaries die within days of each other in a common accident.
How Louisiana Courts Interpret Ambiguous Wills
When a Louisiana will contains ambiguous provisions, courts apply Louisiana Civil Code article 1611, which directs that the court ascertain the testator’s intent from the language of the will, read as a whole, and give effect to that intent if it can be determined. The court attempts to harmonize conflicting provisions rather than strike them down, and prefers an interpretation that gives legal effect to some portion of the will over one that voids the provision entirely.
For latent ambiguity — where the will’s language is clear but its application to the facts is not — Louisiana courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine what the testator meant. This evidence can include correspondence, conversations recounted by witnesses, prior drafts of the will, and the testator’s known relationships and circumstances at the time of execution. Louisiana courts are more cautious about admitting extrinsic evidence for patent ambiguity, where the text itself is uncertain.
Scrivener’s error is a related issue that sometimes arises in will interpretation cases. If the attorney who drafted the will made a transcription error — typing one beneficiary’s name when the testator clearly intended another — evidence of what the testator actually directed may be relevant. Louisiana courts balance the evidentiary value of the will’s actual text against evidence of contrary intent. Where the evidence of error is clear and convincing, some courts have corrected the will through reformation, though this remains a contested area of Louisiana law.
How to Prevent Ambiguity When Drafting a Will
Prevention is far cheaper than litigation over an ambiguous will. Real property should be described by its legal description — or at minimum by its full municipal address — not by an informal name. Movable property should be described with sufficient specificity to eliminate confusion: make, model, and serial number for vehicles; account numbers for financial accounts; physical description and estimated value for jewelry and artwork.
Beneficiaries should be identified by their full legal name and their relationship to the testator. When two family members share a name, add a date of birth or other identifying information. For charitable organizations, use the organization’s full legal name and, if applicable, its federal tax identification number — charity names change, merge, and dissolve, and an imprecise reference can become unenforceable years after the will is executed.
Every will should include a clear alternate-beneficiary provision for each major gift and a residuary clause to catch any asset not addressed by a specific legacy. A well-drafted will anticipates the testator’s death in a wide variety of circumstances — a beneficiary’s prior death, the sale or destruction of specific property, the birth of additional children — and provides clear direction for each scenario. Reviewing the will every few years and after major life changes — marriage, divorce, births, deaths, significant asset acquisitions — ensures it remains accurate and avoids the ambiguities that litigation creates.