
    SUCCESSION OF Marshall Lee TYSON.
    No. 30703-CA.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
    June 26, 1998.
    Barry Feazell, for Appellant Exie B. Tyson and Ai'bie E. Fields.
    
      T. Lynn Geneux, Shreveport, for Appellee Irene Tyson Hucherson.
    Before MARVIN, C.J., and NORRIS and WILLIAMS, JJ.
   liWILLIAMS, Judge.

Exie B. Tyson, testator’s wife, her nephew, Arbie E. Fields , and Irene Tyson Hutcher-son, testator’s sister and executrix of his will, filed a joint petition for declaratory judgment seeking a judicial interpretation of the meaning of the dispositive language of the testator’s last will and testament and handwritten codicil. The trial court rendered a declaratory judgment interpreting the testator’s intent with respect to the testator’s Louisiana property. The trial court’s judgment declared that Exie B. Tyson and Arbie E. Fields were entitled to inherit the testator’s Louisiana property known as the Henderson estate and that the residuary legatees were entitled to inherit the testator’s other immovable property in Louisiana, known as the Tyson estate. Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part and render.

FACTS

The testator, Marshall Lee Tyson (“Tyson”) died on November 1, 1991. Although Tyson was originally from Louisiana, he was domiciled in Los Angeles, California at the time of his death. He executed a valid typewritten will in California on February 22, 1984, and subsequently, a handwritten codicil dated November 12,1986.

Tyson’s will provided in pertinent part:

I declare that it is my intention to dispose of all my property, both real and personal, of whatever nature and wherever situated, which I am entitled to dispose of by will.
I declare that all property held and known by me, of whatever nature and wherever situated, regardless of how title is held is separate property.
I declare that the property to be dispose [sic] of by this will as follows:
|2Real property located in the City of Longwood,’ Caddo Parish, Louisiana, and described as:
16,467 Acres-Lot 7. Henderson Estate. 3.47 Acres-Lot 7A. Henderson Estate.
Other real property in LouisianaQocation and description are unknown)

APPOINTMENTS

I appoint as Executrix of this will IRENE HUTCHISON [sic], to serve without Bond.

DISPOSITION OF ESTATE

I make the following specific bequests:

To EXIE B. TYSON, my spouse and ARBY E. FIELDS, my nephew of my wife, as joint tenants, the real property in Louisiana and interest in other real property and personal property wherever located to be divided according to the laws where such property is located.
To IRENE HUTCHINSON [sic], my sister I give 50% of the residue of my estate, of whatever nature and wherever situated, provided she survives me by at least 90 days.
To my nieces and nephews, MARSHALL GILLIAM, HALDENE GILLIAM, MILDRED WILLIAMS AND CHANCEY GILLIAM, I give 50% of the residue of my estate, .of whatever nature and wherever situated, to share and share alike provided they survives [sic] me by at least 90 days.
If any beneficiary of mine predeceases me or fails to survive me by at least 90 days and leaves no issue, then any share of my estate that they may have taken shall augment proportionately to the shares of my surviving beneficiaries, unless a contrary intent is herein expressed.

The codicil, dated November 12,1986, stated:

I am in sound mind. I am adding a little more to my will Give my sister Ira D. Gilliam [sie] four children my part of the Shufer estate on which Shrulock Oil Co. have [sic] the lease on it [sic]. I hope you all understand this will the other will is still good only it pertain [sic] to the Henderson estate
M
Marshall L. Tyson

The residuary legatees, Irene Tyson Hutcherson,.individually and as [¡¡executrix of the estate, and the testator’s nieces and nephews, Mildred Williams, Marshall Gilliam, Harold Dean Gilliam and Chauncey Gilliam, suggest that the will was not clear with respect to what constituted the “residue.” They contend that the clear intent of the codicil, read in conjunction with the will, was for the “other real property in Louisiana,” items 3 through 11 and item 13 of the sworn descriptive list, to be considered the residual portion of the estate and inherited 50% by Hutcherson and 50% by Tyson’s nieces and nephews. [The Last Will and Testament, 1986 Codicil and Sworn Descriptive List of Assets and Liabilities have been reproduced and attached to this opinion as Appendix “A”.] They also assert that the only property in Louisiana that Tyson intended to bequest to Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields was the Henderson estate.

Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields contend that the estate has no residue and the only effect of the codicil was to bequest the Schuford property to the testator’s nieces and nephews. They argue that Tyson intended for them to inherit the Henderson estate as well as the “other real property in Louisiana.”

Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that the Henderson estate should be inherited by Tyson’s widow and her nephew. They also stipulated that the Schuford property should be inherited by Tyson’s nieces and nephews. Thus, this litigation focused on items 3 through 11 and item 13 of the sworn descriptive list, which describes other Caddo Parish properties owned by the testator.

After trial, the court concluded that the bequest to Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields in the typewritten will was limited by the codicil to include only the Henderson estate. The trial court rendered judgment declaring that Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields are entitled to inherit the Henderson estate and the “other real property located in Louisiana” is considered the residue of the estate and is to be inherited by the residual legatees.

|4Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields appeal the trial court’s judgment.

DISCUSSION

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of the codicil. Appellants challenge the trial court’s interpretation of the testator’s statement “the other will is still good only it pertain [sic] to the Henderson estate.”

When interpreting testaments, this Court must attempt to ascertain and carry out the intention of the testator. LSA-C.C. Art. 1712; Succession of Hagelberger, 96-2049 (La.App. 4th Cir. 8/27/97), 700 So.2d 226; Succession of Meeks, 609 So.2d 1035 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). The intent of the testator is the paramount consideration in determining the provisions of a will, and when a will is free from ambiguity, the will must be carried out according to its written terms, without reference to information outside the will. Succession of Schiro, 96-1567 (La.App. 4th Cir. 4/9/97), 691 So.2d 1374. However, if a provision in a will is subject to more than one equally reasonable interpretation, the court may consider all circumstances existing at the time of the execution of the will which may aid in determining the intent of the testator, and not just the language of the will. Succession of Schiro, supra. Thus, where there is ambiguity in the description of the legatee, or the thing which the testator intended to bequeath, or the quantum or portion of the legacy, or where there is doubt as to the sense in which the words are used by the testator, the court may resort to extrinsic evidence. Succession of Hurst v. Gremillion, 552 So.2d 799 (La. App. 1st Cir.1989). The court uses extrinsic evidence to determine what the words of the testator, as written, actually mean. It is important to note that such evidence is used solely to resolve ambiguity, not to rewrite the will or do violence to its terms. Succession of Hurst v. Gremillion, supra.

^¿Courts must seek to give meaning to all testamentary language in a will and avoid any interpretation that would act to render the language meaningless or reduce it to surplusage. LSA-C.C. art. 1713; Succession of Meeks, supra. In the interpretation of wills, the first and natural impression conveyed to the mind on reading the clause involved is entitled to great weight. Adams v. Taylor, 552 So.2d 744 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1989).

According to appellees, if Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields inherit according to the terms of the will, the residuary clauses will have no effect. Appellees argue that LSA-C.C. art. 1713 requires that a disposition should be read in a manner so that it can have effect, rather than one where it has no effect. The appellees claim that the testator intended for them to inherit all of his real property in Louisiana, except the Henderson estate. They base their assertion on the wording of the codicil, in particular, the testator’s use of the word “only” when referring to the Henderson estate. Appellees concluded that, the word “only” was used to specifically limit the bequest to Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields to the Henderson estate.

Appellants claim that the will is unambiguous in its declaration that the testator intended to dispose of all of his real and personal property in Louisiana as well as in any other state. According to appellants, to reach a conclusion that the term “real property in Louisiana” refers only to the Henderson estate would eliminate the disposition of most of the real property in the estate, and therefore, violate the provisions of LSA-C.C. art. 1713.

As previously stated, a court may resort to extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity in a will. In this instance, the trial court relied on the testimony of Irene Hutcherson to attempt to resolve the ambiguity. Hutch-erson testified that she had discussions with the testator regarding his will. She stated that Tyson had^informed her that he wanted Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields to have the Henderson estate. However, Hutcherson did not testify that the testator intended for Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields to inherit only the Henderson estate. During further questioning, Hutcherson was asked about “ her interpretation of the will” and what “in her mind” was the testator’s intention. She responded that the testator intended to give the residuary legatees the remaining property in Louisiana. We conclude that Hutch-erson’s testimony was not sufficient to determine what the words of the testator, as written, actually meant. Most of Hutcher-son’s testimony was based on her interpretation of the testator’s will rather than concrete evidence. Thus, her testimony does not resolve the ambiguity in the will.

We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the codicil makes a specific bequest of the Schuford property, but we cannot agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the codicil also limits the language of the will with respect to the bequest of the real property to include only the Henderson estate.

The record discloses that the testator’s property in Louisiana consists of the Henderson estate, the Schuford property and other property in Louisiana referred to at the trial as the Tyson property. Despite the poor wording of the will and the ambiguities present, the provisions of the will clearly declare the testator’s intent to leave Exie Tyson and Arbie Fields, as joint tenants, all of his real property in Louisiana. The provisions of the will were affected by the subsequent codicil which made a specific bequest of the Schuford property to the testator’s nieces and nephews, thus leaving the remaining real property in Louisiana to Exie and Arbie.

In the codicil, the testator did not state that the will only pertained to the LHenderson estate. Instead, he remarked that the will was “still good only it pertain [sic] to the Henderson estate.” We conclude that the word “only” was intended to be descriptive (and) as opposed to restrictive, thereby limiting the bequest that the testator made to Exie and Arbie. In other words, the testator was not using the word “only” as an adverb, but as a conjunction with essentially the same meaning as the word “except.” As previously stated, the original will was clear in describing Tyson’s intent regarding the disposition of his property in Louisiana. In the codicil, the testator stated that he wanted to “add a little more” to his will. This statement did not revoke any provisions of the original will other than with respect to the Schuford property. To read the codicil otherwise, not only would transpose the words “only” and “it” in the codicil, but would depart significantly from the original will that plainly described the real property to be disposed of as including both the Henderson estate and other real property in Louisiana and plainly made a bequest to the decedent’s spouse and her nephew, as joint tenants, of the real property in Louisiana. Under the provisions of LSA-C.C. art. 1698, posterior testaments that do not expressly revoke pri- or ones, annul in the latter only such dispositions therein contained as are incompatible with the new ones, or contrary to them, or entirely different.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment declaring that Exie B. Tyson and Arbie E. Fields are entitled to inherit items 1 and 2 of the sworn descriptive list, also known as the Henderson estate. We reverse the trial court’s judgment finding that the residuary legatees, Irene Tyson Hutcherson, Mildred Williams, Marshall Gilliam, Harold Dean Gilliam and Chauncey Gilliam are entitled to inherit items 3 through 11 and item 13 of the sworn descriptive list, known as the Tyson property. We amend the judgment to interpret Marshall Lee IsTyson’s will as a bequest of items 3 through 11 and item 13 of the sworn descriptive list of assets and liabilities, known as the Tyson property, 50% to Exie B. Tyson and 50% to Arbie E. Fields. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellees, Irene Tyson Hutcher-son, Mildred Williams, Marshall Gilliam, Harold Dean Gilliam and Chauncey Gilliam.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED AND RENDERED.

APPENDIX "A"

IMMOVABLE - SEPARATE:

REAL ESTATE:

1. Lot 7, Henderson Estate Partition, a partition of lands located in Sections 14 and 23, Township 18 North, Range 16 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Conveyance Book 800, page 85 of the records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being 16.467 acres, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 181614-003-0007 ‡ 2,400.00

2. Lot 7-A, Henderson Estate Partition, a partition of lands located in Sections 14 and 23, Township 18 North, Range 16 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, as per plat recorded in Conveyance Book 800, page 85 of the records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, being 3.47 acres, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 181614-003-0019 500.00

3. An undivided 9/44ths interest in the West Half of Northwest Quarter (Wí¡¡ of ÑWJt;); Northeast Quarter of Northwest Quarter (NE?>; of NWlj;); Northwest Quarter of Northeast Quarter (NWV of NBA;) Section 5, Township 22 North, Range 15 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 221505-000-0002 & 3 (Assessed as the John L. Stewart Estate) 2,000.00

4. -36.57 acres, more or less, being the Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter (S©¡ of SWS5) Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 15 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana (LESS North 210 ft. of East 425 ft. and LESS ROAD), a/k/a Assessor's Tract 231519-000-0060 4,400.00

5. An undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in 85 acres, being the South Half of Northeast Quarter (S@S of NEJu) Section 6, Township 22 North, Range 15 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 221506-000-0002 3,075.00

6. An undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in 107.50 acres, being the North Half of Southwest Quarter (Nk of Stft), and West Half of Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter (W*s of NVfti of SE9t) Section 6, Township' 22 North, Range 15 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract OOl en< _hhh..nnn I'

Jl8

7. An undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in 10 acres, being the East 10 acres of Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter (NEA; of SEA;) Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 16 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 221601-000-0015 275.00

8. An undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in 40 acres, being described as the Northwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter (NWA; of NW4;) Section B0, Township 23 North, Range 15 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 231530-000-0005 1,500.00

9. An undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest m 25 acres, more particularly described as South Half of Southeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter ($5 of SEA; of ■NEA;) and Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter (NEA; of SEA; of NEW (LESS 5 acres in a square in the Northeast corner) Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 16 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 231624-000-0035 725.00

10. An undivided l/24ths interest in 29 acres, more or less, being Southeast Quarter of Northwest Quarter (SEA; of NW4;) Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 16 West, LESS North 466 ft. of East 466 ft & LESS East 255 ft. of South 854 ft. & LESS West 220 ft. of East 686 ft. of North 198 ft. thereof, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 231624-000-0048 950.00

11. An undivided l/24ths interest in 64.36 acres, more or less, being North 30 acres of South Half of Southeast Quarter, Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter (S3g of SEA;, NWA; of SEA;), Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 16 West, LESS South 295.16 ft. of North 712.58 ft. of West 295-16 ft. thereof, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a/k/a Assessor's Tract 23l624-000r042 2,125.00

12. An undivided .08125 interest in South Half of Northeast Quarter (Sig of NEA;) Section 29, Township 18 North, Range 16 West, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, which interest was acquired by David D. Tyson from James Schuford July 2, 1927 (Assessed as the Lewis Schuford Estate), a/k/a Assessor’s Tract 181629-000-0003 860.00

000021

13. An undivided * one-fourth (1/4) interest in South 40 feet of North 85 feet of Lots 14 and 15, Foster & Long's Subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Shreveport, as per plat recorded in Plat Book 9, page 238 of the Records of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings and improvements thereon, a/k/a Assessor’s Tract 181436-008-0043 & 44 (interest acquired by Fred L. Harris in 1976. Deed lost, interest to be quitclaimed to proper owner) o.oo

TOTAL IMMOVABLE - REAL ESTATE: $ 22,885.00

GROSS ESTATE: $ 22,885.00

bll/001

000022 
      
      . Testimony in the record reveals that Arbie E. Fields had resided with Marshall and Exie Tyson since.he was approximately six weeks old.
     
      
      . The will included, among other errors, a misspelling of the names of family members and a mistake in the amount of acreage in the description of the Henderson estate.
     