disposition contrary to some rule in Nebraska

2026Chris contends that there is a latent ambiguity because decedent did not define “business” or “interest in any business.” Thus, Chris argues that the court erred in finding that the will was unambiguous and finding that it was prohib- ited from considering Chris’ affidavit. (a) General Principles [3-5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy. 6 To arrive at a testator’s intention

2026Chris contends that there is a latent ambiguity because decedent did not define “business” or “interest in any business.” Thus, Chris argues that the court erred in finding that the will was unambiguous and finding that it was prohib- ited from considering Chris’ affidavit. (a) General Principles [3-5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy. 6 To arrive at a testator’s intention

1961The following principles are applicable herein: “The cardinal rule of testamentary construction is to ascertain the intention of the testator as expressed in his will, and to give it effect, unless the testator attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy.” In re Estate of Dimmitt, 141 Neb. 413 , 3 N. W. 2d 752 , 144 A. L.

1961The following principles are applicable herein: “The cardinal rule of testamentary construction is to ascertain the intention of the testator as expressed in his will, and to give it effect, unless the testator attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy.” In re Estate of Dimmitt, 141 Neb. 413 , 3 N. W. 2d 752 , 144 A. L.

2026Chris contends that there is a latent ambiguity because decedent did not define “business” or “interest in any business.” Thus, Chris argues that the court erred in finding that the will was unambiguous and finding that it was prohib- ited from considering Chris’ affidavit. (a) General Principles [3-5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy. 6 To arrive at a testator’s intention

2026Chris contends that there is a latent ambiguity because decedent did not define “business” or “interest in any business.” Thus, Chris argues that the court erred in finding that the will was unambiguous and finding that it was prohib- ited from considering Chris’ affidavit. (a) General Principles [3-5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy. 6 To arrive at a testator’s intention

2026Chris contends that there is a latent ambiguity because decedent did not define “business” or “interest in any business.” Thus, Chris argues that the court erred in finding that the will was unambiguous and finding that it was prohib- ited from considering Chris’ affidavit. (a) General Principles [3-5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy. 6 To arrive at a testator’s intention

2026Parol evidence is inadmissible to determine the intent of a testator as expressed in his or her will, unless there is a latent ambiguity therein which makes 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 In re Estate of Barger, supra note 2 . 10 See, e.g., In re Estate of Brinkman, supra note 4 . 11 Id. 12 Id. - 358 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF SCHNEIDER Cite as 321 Neb. 350 his or her intention obscure or uncertain. 13 Extrinsic evidence is admissible both to disclose and to remove latent ambiguity of a will. 14 (d) Application The county court found “no ambiguity on [the will’

2017Stat. § 30-2464 (a) (Reissue 2016) states that a personal representative is “under a duty to settle and distrib- ute the estate of the decedent in accordance with the terms of any probated and effective will and this code, and as expedi- tiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.” [4,5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy.7 To arrive at a t

2017Stat. § 30-2464 (a) (Reissue 2016) states that a personal representative is “under a duty to settle and distrib- ute the estate of the decedent in accordance with the terms of any probated and effective will and this code, and as expedi- tiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.” [4,5] The cardinal rule concerning a decedent’s will is the requirement that the intention of the testator shall be given effect, unless the maker of the will attempts to accomplish a purpose or to make a disposition contrary to some rule of law or public policy.7 To arrive at a t

1987See, Overbeck v. Estate of Bock, 198 Neb. 121 , 251 N.W.2d 872 (1977); Lacy v. Murdock, 147 Neb. 242 , 22 N.W.2d 713 (1946); In re Estate of Dimmitt, 141 Neb. 413 , 3 N.W.2d 752 (1942).

1987See, Overbeck v. Estate of Bock, 198 Neb. 121 , 251 N.W.2d 872 (1977); Lacy v. Murdock, 147 Neb. 242 , 22 N.W.2d 713 (1946); In re Estate of Dimmitt, 141 Neb. 413 , 3 N.W.2d 752 (1942).