Bennett v. Ditto
204 S.W.3d 145 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A testator's name written within a concluding, authenticating sentence of a holographic will satisfies the statutory requirement for a signature, and it is considered subscribed 'at the end' of the will if any material following it is neither dispositive of the estate nor essential to the will's validity.
Facts:
- Donna H. Wiseman died on July 28, 2002.
- A document purported to be her will was written entirely in Wiseman's own handwriting.
- The document contained a final paragraph stating, 'This was written by Donna H Wiseman on June 9, 2002.'
- Following this sentence, the will included a clause appointing an executor.
- Below the executor appointment clause were the signatures of two witnesses, although witnesses are not required for a holographic will in Kentucky.
Procedural Posture:
- A document purported to be the holographic will of Donna H. Wiseman was admitted to probate by the Meade District Court.
- Bethane Ditto and Ruth Warmser filed a complaint in the Meade Circuit Court, challenging the probate on the grounds that the will was not properly signed.
- The Meade Circuit Court held that the will was improperly admitted to probate, finding it was not signed at the end or close of the writing as required by statute.
- Katie Beth Bennett, a beneficiary, appealed the Meade Circuit Court's decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a testator's name written within a final, authenticating sentence of a holographic will, followed by non-dispositive and non-essential clauses, satisfy the statutory requirements for a signature subscribed at the end of the writing?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, Judge
Yes. A testator's name written within a final, authenticating sentence satisfies the statutory requirement for a signature subscribed at the end of the writing. The court determined the phrase 'This was written by Donna H Wiseman' plainly and unmistakably showed Wiseman's consent to the will's terms, thus meeting the subscription requirement of KRS 394.040. The court then analyzed whether the signature was 'at the end or close' as required by KRS 446.060. Citing precedent, the court found that material following a signature only invalidates it if the material is dispositive of the estate or essential to the will's validity. Because the date, the appointment of an executor, and the superfluous witness signatures were all non-dispositive and non-essential, the signature was deemed to be at the end of the will.
Concurring - Buckingham, Senior Judge
Yes. Although agreeing with the majority's conclusion, this opinion advises that the holding should be strictly confined to the specific facts of this case. The author expresses the view that a sentence that includes the testator's name would not ordinarily satisfy the statutory signature requirement, but it was sufficient in this particular instance.
Analysis:
This decision reflects a modern judicial trend of favoring the testator's clear intent over strict, formalistic compliance with statutory will execution requirements. By broadening the definition of 'subscribe' to include a name within an authenticating sentence, the court makes it harder to challenge holographic wills on technical signature grounds. The analysis of what constitutes the 'end' of the will reinforces that non-essential, non-dispositive additions after a signature will not invalidate the instrument, providing more security for testators who may be unaware of legal formalities.
Unlock the full brief for Bennett v. Ditto