When determining what a decedent intended to give (donative intent), extrinsic evidence is used only under specific conditions. If the writing is clear and unambiguous, evidence outside the document cannot alter its plain meaning. Extrinsic evidence becomes relevant mainly to interpret terms that are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation or to illuminate the testator’s intent in cases of ambiguity. There are also limits—extrinsic evidence cannot be used to insert terms the document doesn’t contain or to override a clear provision, and it may not be admitted in every situation, such as when the instrument’s language is straightforward and unambiguous. That’s why the correct idea is that extrinsic evidence is not always admissible; there are cases where it is not admissible.

Under majority-rule purging, any advancement given to an heir during the decedent’s life is treated as part of the estate for purposes of equalizing shares. This is done by adding the advancement to the hotchpot—the pool used to calculate each heir’s share. Then the recipient’s final portion from the estate is reduced by the amount of that advancement. This ensures an even distribution: the heir who already received money or property through an advancement doesn’t end up getting more than their fair share. For example, if the estate is 100,000 and one heir received a 20,000 advancement, you’d add 20,000 to the hotchpot to make 120,000, compute equal shares, and then subtract 20,000 from the recipient’s final amount, so totals still reflect what each should receive without double-counting the lifetime gift.

Under the UPC, a will can be reformed to reflect the testator’s actual intent even if the language looks unambiguous, as long as there is clear and convincing evidence that (1) the testator intended a particular disposition at the time of execution and (2) the written terms don’t reflect that intent because of a mistake of fact or law. This rule protects the testator’s true wishes from being thwarted by drafting errors or misapplied legal concepts, and the high burden of proof—clear and convincing—ensures courts only make changes when the evidence is strong. Mistakes can be of fact (such as misidentifying a beneficiary) or of law (such as misapplying a legal rule). Since the scenario presents both the testator’s intent and a mistake with clear and convincing evidence, reform is permitted.

Discretionary trusts give the beneficiary only a potential entitlement, not a guaranteed right to trust assets. The trustee controls whether to distribute and, if so, how much. A judgment creditor can reach property only if there is a present, enforceable right to payment. Because the beneficiary’s right in a discretionary trust is not presently enforceable and can be withheld at the trustee’s discretion, the creditor cannot compel distribution or seize the beneficiary’s interest to satisfy the judgment. Therefore, under the majority rule, you cannot proceed against X’s interest. The fact that distributions occur would depend on the trustee’s discretion, not a guaranteed obligation. (Revocability can change creditor rights in some contexts, but for a discretionary trust, the standard outcome is that the interest isn’t attachable.)