Also known as: latent ambiguities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An uncertainty in the meaning of a document's language that is not apparent from the text alone but emerges when the language is applied to external facts. The uncertainty arises because the words fit more than one object or circumstance once surrounding circumstances are considered. Courts may admit extrinsic evidence to identify which meaning the parties or testator intended.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Leonard Lowe's will devised the north forty acres of his Sunrise Road farm described as Tract B-4 to his son Mark. Surveys later showed that Lowe never owned Tract B-4 but did own the north forty acres of the same farm within Tract D-4. The probate court admitted ownership records and survey evidence showing that only Tract D-4 matched the will's description of land Lowe actually held, so the devise passed Tract D-4 to Mark.
Lumen Capital contracted to sell cotton to Legacy Motors to be shipped from Bombay on the Peerless arriving in Liverpool in October. Two vessels named Peerless sailed from Bombay that season, one in October and one in December. Legacy Motors refused the December shipment, and the court received evidence that each party had a different Peerless in mind when the contract was formed.
A court may admit extrinsic evidence when the will's language appears clear on its face but becomes uncertain once applied to the testator's actual property or beneficiaries. The evidence identifies which of multiple possible referents the testator intended without contradicting the plain text. This approach prevents a gift from failing for misdescription when surrounding facts clarify the intended subject.
A latent ambiguity is not apparent from reading the document itself and surfaces only when the language is applied to external facts. A patent ambiguity appears on the face of the document from inconsistent or unclear wording alone. Courts traditionally admitted extrinsic evidence more readily for latent ambiguities than for patent ambiguities.
…"Peerless" was meant; but the moment it appears that two ships called the "Peerless" were about to sail from Bombay there is a latent ambiguity, and parol evidence may be given for the purpose of showing that the defendant meant one "Peerless" and the plaintiff another. That being so, there was no consensus ad idem, and therefore…
…Extrinsic Evidence in Will Interpretation Cases, 64 Mass. L. Rev. 123 (1979). In fact, however, the decedent’s bequest created a latent ambiguity
No. A latent ambiguity permits extrinsic evidence to show that the parties attached different meanings to the same term. If the parties actually intended different referents and neither knew of the other's meaning, no contract forms. If one party knew of the ambiguity, the court may enforce the meaning intended by the innocent party.
Evidence of the circumstances surrounding execution, the donor's property holdings, and the identities of named beneficiaries is admissible. Direct evidence of the donor's subjective intent contradicting plain language is excluded. The evidence must identify which plausible construction matches the facts known at execution or death.