I understand that you are in Indiana and my answer pertains to Indiana law.
The case law on ambiguities in a will is as follows:
the intention of a testator must in all cases govern the construction of a will, unless in violation of some rule of law. To ascertain such intention, the court may hear evidence of [***10] the circumstances, situation, and surroundings of the testator when the will was made, and the state and description of his property. 2 Underhill, Law of Wills, §§ 909-911, 914; Wigram, Wills (2d Am. ed.), 56, 161; Schouler, Wills, § 579; 1 Jarman, Wills (5th Am. ed.), 733-762; Page, Wills, §§ 816, 817; Whiteman v. Whiteman, 152 Ind. 263, 273, 274, 53 N.E. 225; Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210, 217,XXXXX 617, 29 L. Ed. 860; Black v. Richards, 95 Ind. 184, 189-191; Daugherty v. Rogers, 119 Ind. 254, 258-261, 20 N.E. 779; Dennis v. Holsapple, 148 Ind. 297,XXXXX 526, 47 N.E. 631; Price v. Price, 89 Ind. 90, 91. HN5If by thus putting itself in the testator's place, the court is able to understand and apply the language of the will, it may give effect to the same although containing errors or repugnancies, so far as the intention of the testator can be determined, and will pronounce judgment with such repugnancies removed or errors corrected. It is well settled that HN6when a latent ambiguity is disclosed by extrinsic evidence, it may be removed by extrinsic evidence. Whiteman v. Whiteman, supra; Patch v. White, supra.
[*540] [***11] HN7It is true that extrinsic evidence will not be resorted to for the purpose of changing or varying the words of a will, but courts for a long period of years have felt compelled to deal with descriptions in such a manner as to reach the intent of the testator, when that seemed practicable, and by construction and by the admission of oral evidence to remove latent ambiguities. It is well established that however many errors there may be in a description, either of the devisee or the subject of the devise, it will not avoid the bequest
if after rejecting the errors or false words enough remains to show with reasonable certainty what was intended when considered from the position of the testator. 1 Redfield, Wills (4th ed.), 580 et seq.; 2 Underhill, Law of Wills, §§ 909-914; O'Hara, Wills, 369, 374; Wigram, Wills (2d Am. ed.), 52-54, 144-147; Page, Wills, §§ 473, 487, 819; 3 Albany L. J. 263-267; Trustees, etc., v. Peaslee, 15 N.H. 317; Winkley v. Kaime, 32 N.H. 268; Allen v. Lyons, 2 Wash. C. C. 475, 1 F. Cas. 486; Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210, 29 L. Ed. 860,XXXXX 617; Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum v. Emmons, 3 Brad. Surr. 144; [***12] Cleveland v. Carson, 37 N.J. Eq. 377, 18 Cent. L.J. 68, and note pp. 69-71; Willard v. Darrah, 168 Mo. 660, 68 S.W. 1023; Judge Redfield's note to Kurtz v. Hibner, 10 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 97-101; Riggs v. Myers, 20 Mo. 239; Gaston's Estate, 188 Pa. 374, 41 A. 529; Black v. Richards, supra; Jackson v. Hoover, 26 Ind. 511; Whiteman v. Whiteman, supra; Miller v. Coulter, 156 Ind. 290, 293, 59 N.E. 853; [**294] Groves v. Culph, 132 Ind. 186, 31 N.E. 569; Skinner v. Harrison Tp., 116 Ind. 139, 18 N.E. 529; Elliott v. Elliott, 117 Ind. 380,XXXXX 54, 20 N.E. 264; Chappell v. Missionary Soc., etc., 3 Ind. App. 356,XXXXX 276, 29 N.E. 924.
So the question in resolving this ambiguity is whether there is any statement in the will which would tell us which number is XXXXX For instance, if it is 40%, then there should be a corresponding 60% devise to someone else. If it is 45%, then there should be a 55% devise to someone else.
If there isn't any language in the will which would otherwise clarify, the next thing to do is to look for extrinsic evidence. Can anyone testify as to which number is XXXXX? This would be your next step in clarifying the ambiguity.
Please let me know if you need further information.