My apologies on the confusion. I will try to clarify.
Thank you for your assistance, however your response is confusing to me. Obviosly the intent of the deceased was to revoke previous property as a gift to said son and place back into the trust.
It is not so obvious. If the language is ambiguous, confusing, or contrary (as this would be, since there is an error as far as the trust), the courts have to figure out whether that type of an error is 'material' and substantial enough to revoke all changes, or 'minor' and would therefore be able to be ignored. I agree that the intent revoke may be potentially clear, but where the funds would go is not so clear, and there a claim arises that perhaps the individual was not competent or able to revoke if he attempted to move the assets into a trust that didn't exist. I am not stating that this is a strong claim, but it is a very legitimate argument by someone challenging the transfer.
The typo listed my husbands previous trust with his wife now deceased 5 years and when we married he revoked that trust and renamed the trust in may of 2013 at which time questionable property was gifted to son in trust in june of 2015 my husband amended the trust and revoke that property gift.
That would explain why the son would challenge. As he is being denied a gift, and here the trust is not listed as valid, in his position the transfer of assets never took place.
The scriveners error is on the amendment stating the earlier revoked trust as the actual amended trust instead of the correctly renamed trust, my husbands intent was verbally witnessed by attorney my self and notary, the son was aware of this change but now is lying and trying to capitalize on the scriveners error
A verbal witness is not enough, usually. Written intent is key and necessary. The witness becomes useful if this is someone 'disinterested' to the process, meaning it is someone who is not slated to profit or inherit from the trust or will in any way.