A court is able to consider extrinsic evidence, and therefore contravene the plain meaning rule’s bar on extrinsic evidence, when a will contains a latent ambiguity. Emmert v. Hearn, 309 Md. 19, 27 (1987); Monmier v. Monmonier, 258 Md. 387, 390 (1970); Bradford v. Eutaw Savings Bank, 186 Md. 127, 136 (1946); Fersinger v. Martin, 183 Md. 135, 138-39 (1944); Darden v. Bright, 173 Md. 563, 569 (1938); Cassilly v. Devenny, 168 Md. 443, 449 (1935).
A latent ambiguity is one where the terms of the will appear clear and without ambiguity, but those terms yield more than one meaning once the extrinsic evidence is permitted. Emmert v. Hearn, 309 Md. 19, 27 (1987). See also Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Wills and Other Donative Transfers, § 11.1 cmt. c. (2003). Once the extrinsic evidence is introduced, it shows that a description of a beneficiary or piece of property contained in the will is defective or that it applies equally to two or more persons or things. Emmert, 309 Md. at 27 (citing W. Bowe & D. Parker, “Page on the Law of Wills,” § 32.7, p. 225 (rev. ed. 1961)). An example of a latent ambiguity would be a bequest “‘to my cousin John’ … if evidence extrinsic to the document reveals that the testator had no cousin named John when he executed the will but did then have a nephew named John and a cousin named James.” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Wills and Other Donative Transfers, § 11.1 cmt. c. (2003). Thus, a court can review extrinsic evidence to resolve a latent ambiguity in contravention of the plain meaning rule because the evidence clarifies a mistake that appears on its face not to be a mistake but indeed appears to be clear and unambiguous. Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210, 217 (1886).
In contrast, if a will contains a patent ambiguity, a court is foreclosed from reviewing extrinsic evidence to directly supplement the testator’s intent. Emmert, 309 Md. at 27 n. 4. A patent ambiguity in a will comes from an apparent contradiction within the document itself or where a term that is used in the document could yield several meanings. .” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Wills and Other Donative Transfers, § 11.1 cmt. b. (2003). For example, a patent ambiguity exists in a bequest of “my money.” The term “my money” raises the question as to whether the phrase was intended to apply only to the decedent’s cash on hand or, more generally, to the decedent’s assets. Id. Consequently, a patent ambiguity cannot be resolved with extrinsic evidence; rather, a court must divine the testator’s intent from the four corners of the will itself. Hawman v. Thomas, 44 Md. 30, 31 (1876).
