Extrinsic Evidence Not Admissible to Vary the Meaning of Unambiguous Term

Parents created an inter vivos trust giving their son income for life, remainder to his “issue.” Parents amended the trust several times to redefine “issue” to exclude both persons adopted into the son’s bloodline and those adopted out. The son fathered a nonmarital child who was acknowledged by both the son and his parents.

A California intermediate appellate court reversed the lower court’s finding that the nonmarital child was not a beneficiary of the trust, finding that the failure of the language to address the status of nonmarital children did not create a latent ambiguity, that the extrinsic evidence supports the child’s inclusion, and that had the settlors wished to exclude nonmarital children, they could have amended the trust just as they did to exclude those adopted in or out.

Citizens Business Bank v. Carrano, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

Special thanks to William P. LaPiana (Rita and Joseph Solomon Professor of Wills, Trusts,and Estates, New York Law School) for bringing this to my attention.