See also Wilson v. Molda, 396 Ill. App. 3d 100, 105 (2009) (although the appellate court could not determine from the appellate record whether defendant's section 2-619 motion was timely, it held that plaintiff had forfeited this issue). Second, if there was something necessary and material that was missing from the appellate record, such as evidence of an objection, it was the appellant's burden to provide it. Wilson, 396 Ill. App. 3d at 105 (citing Luss v. Village of Forest Park, 337 Ill. App. 3d 318, 331 (2007)); Pelleton, Inc. v. McGivern's, Inc., 375 Ill. App. 3d 222, 227 (2007); Smolinski v. Vojta, 363 Ill. App. 3d 752, 757 (2006). For these reasons, we do not find defendants' motion defective on timeliness grounds.

While the language itself is the best proof of the testator's intent, when an ambiguity exists, extrinsic evidence may be used to determine the testator's intent. Cain v. Finnie, 337 Ill. App. 3d 318, 320, 785 N.E.2d 1039, 1041 (2003); Miller, 230 Ill. App. 3d at 146, 595 N.E.2d at 633. I

While the language of the will is the best proof of the testator's intent, when a latent ambiguity exists, evidence extrinsic to the will, such as the circumstances under which the instrument was drafted and the state of the testator's property and his family, may be utilized. Cain v. Finnie, 337 Ill. App. 3d 318, 320 (2003). Articles V, VI, and VII each contain the term "residue."