So. 29; Mastin v. First Natl. Bank of Mobile, 278 Ala. 251, 177 So.2d 808; C.J.S., Wills, §§ 614 and 615. If a Will is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one interpretation or construction, testator's intention must be ascertained not only from language of Will, but from language of Will in connection with existing facts and circumstances known to testator at time of drafting Will. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 236 Ala. 161, 181 So. 92; Sellers v. Sellers, 270 Ala. 173, 117 So. 386; Pack v. Pack, 269 Ala. 35, 110 So.2d 282; Brittain v. Ingram, 282 Ala. 158, 209 So.2d 653; First Natl. Bank of B'ham. v. Klein, 234 So.2d 42. Where Will of testator leaves property to his wife and provides for the disposition of his estate "in case she does not survive him", and the testator is divorced from his wife before his death, such provision in his Will should be construed to mean "in case she does not survive him as his wife", and the disposition of his estate to contingent legatees given effect. Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21; Peiffer v. Old Natl. Bank and Trust Co., 166 Wn. 1, 6 P.2d 386; 18 A.L.R.2d 713. A. A. Smith, Hartford, Farmer Farmer, Dothan, for appellees.

The intent of the settlor of a trust is the law of the trust. Thurlow v. Berry, 249 Ala. 597, 32 So.2d 526; Stariha v. Hagood, 252 Ala. 158, 40 So.2d 85. Where a gift of income under a trust agreement is made to one as the widow of the settlor, and to continue only during widowhood, this imports that the gift is because of the marital relation and she can take in no other character than as widow. Bell v. Smalley, 45 N.J. Eq. 478, 18 A. 70; Boddington v. Clairat, L. R. 25, Ch.Div. 685; 50 L.T.N.S. 761, 25 Eng.Rul.Cas. 489; Re: Kettlewell, 98 L.T.N.S. 23 (Eng.); Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21; 35 Am.Jur. 354, § 251; 122 A.L.R. 116; 18 A.L.R.2d 712. Where a husband and wife are divorced a vinculo they each became single persons and after the husband's death the wife is not his widow. Alabama Pension Comm. v. Morris, 242 Ala. 110, 4 So.2d 896; 45 Words and Phrases, Widow and Wives.

Cf. Provident Mutual Life Ins. Co. ofPhiladelphia v. Camerlin, 566 F. Supp. 1517 (W.D.Pa. 1983), aff'd 732 F.2d 147 (3d Cir. 1984) (similar issue concerning conveyances voided by divorce pursuant to 20 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 6111.1 (Purdon 1987)).See, e.g., First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Watson, 286 Ala. 270, 239 So.2d 194 (1970); McGuire v. McGuire, 275 Ark. 432, 631 S.W.2d 12 (1982); Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21 (1947); Lamontagne v. Hunter, 341 So.2d 1074 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1977); In re Estate of Fredericks, 311 So.2d 376 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975); Porter v. Porter, 286 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa 1979); Steele v. Chase, 151 Ind. App. 600, 281 N.E.2d 137 (1972); Russell v. Estate of Russell, 216 Kan. 730, 534 P.2d 261 (1975); In re Will of Sharinay, 58 Misc.2d 334, 295 N.Y.S.2d 502 (1968); Calloway v. Estate of Gasser, 558 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.Civ.App. 1977); Jones v. Brown, 219 Va. 599, 248 S.E.2d 812 (1978); Peiffer v. Old Nat. Bank Union Trust Co., 166 Wn. 1, 6 P.2d 386 (1931); In re Estate of Graef, 124 Wis.2d 25, 368 N.W.2d 633 (1985). In re Estate of Graef, 124 Wis.2d 25, 38, 368 N.W. 633, 639 (1985).

In re Estate of Marks, 102 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).In re Estate of Marks, as well as the cases of Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 271 (1947), and In re Estate of Parker, 110 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 114 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1959), each involved the interpretation of a will, but the general rules of construction of written instruments apply to the construction of trust instruments. Watson v. St. Petersburg Bank Trust Co., 146 So.2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

‘In construing a will, it is the intention which the testator expresses in the will that controls and not that which he might have had in mind when the will was executed.’ ”) (quoting Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21, 22 (1947) (citation omitted)). It is clear from the language of Ms. Aldrich's will that she intended to leave all of the property listed to her brother, Mr. Aldrich, in the event her sister, Ms. Eaton, predeceased her.

Howe v. Sands, 141 Fla. 813, 194 So. 798." Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21, 22 (1947). The testator in the present case cannot be said to have had any intention whatsoever regarding Unit D-105 when he executed his will.

But the considerations are different in these apparently analagous fields of law, the principal difference being that they do not necessarily contemplate that the principal party, whose intention controls if it is possible to ascertain and give effect to it, is dead. The law of wills is calculated to avoid speculation as to the testator's intent and to concentrate upon what he said rather than what he might, or should, have wanted to say. Wright v. Sallet, Fla., 66 So.2d 237; Martin v. Shands, Fla., 49 So.2d 598; State v. North, 159 Fla. 351, 32 So.2d 14; Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21; In re Block's Estate, 143 Fla. 163, 196 So. 410; Howe v. Sands, 141 Fla. 813, 194 So. 798, rehearing denied 142 Fla. 625, 195 So. 609; Rewis v. Rewis, 79 Fla. 126, 84 So. 93. Moreover, in probate matters statutory mandates hedge us in closely. Under F.S. Sec. 731.09, F.S.A., for example, revocation of a will is void if such revocation "is procured by fraud, duress, menace or undue influence * * *."

" This question has not heretofore been decided by this court, although in Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21, it was held that, construing the will there involved as a whole, it was the intention of the testator that his wife should take under the will only if she survived him as his wife, so that the legacy to the wife lapsed upon the divorce of the parties. The Iles case is not, however, authority for the proposition that a divorce between the parties revokes, by operation of law, a previous legacy to the surviving spouse, nor is it helpful in our consideration of the question here presented.

Howe v. Sands, 141 Fla. 813, 194 So. 798." Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21, 22 (1947).Id. at 109.

However, it is the intention which the testator expresses in the instrument that governs, not that which he might have had in mind when it was executed. Iles v. Iles, 158 Fla. 493, 29 So.2d 21 (1947). In construing a will, words should be given their ordinary and usual meaning.