Boren v. Boren
402 S.W.2d 728, 1966 Tex. LEXIS 269, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 340 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A self-proving affidavit attached to a will cannot cure a failure of the witnesses to sign the will itself. The execution of a valid will, including attestation by witnesses on the testamentary document, is a condition precedent to the usefulness of the self-proving provisions.
Facts:
- In June 1959, O. K. Boren executed a one-page typewritten document intended to be his last will.
- The document purported to devise all of Boren's property to his sister and two of his brothers, excluding another brother, Earnest S. Boren.
- O. K. Boren signed the will document.
- No witnesses signed their names on the will document itself.
- A separate self-proving affidavit was attached to the will document.
- O. K. Boren and two witnesses, J. L. Pinkerton and Flossie Bingham, signed the attached affidavit before a notary public.
- The affidavit text falsely stated that the witnesses had subscribed their names to the 'foregoing instrument' (the will).
- O. K. Boren subsequently died.
Procedural Posture:
- The document executed by O. K. Boren was admitted to probate as his last will in the County Court of Ward County, the court of first instance.
- Earnest S. Boren, the deceased's brother, filed an action to set aside the order of probate.
- On appeal, the district court upheld the validity of the document as a will.
- The Court of Civil Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the will.
- Earnest S. Boren (Petitioner) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court.
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 self-proving affidavit, which is signed by the testator and two witnesses but is separate from the will, satisfy the statutory requirement that a will be attested by two credible witnesses subscribing their names to the will itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Pope, Justice
No. A self-proving affidavit cannot satisfy the statutory attestation requirements for a will. The purpose of a self-proving affidavit is solely to provide an alternative method for proving a will's validity in probate, not to validate an improperly executed will. The court reasoned that the Texas Probate Code distinguishes between the will itself and the self-proving provisions. The affidavit is not part of the will; its only function is to allow a will to be probated without the live testimony of a subscribing witness. Therefore, the execution of a valid will is a condition precedent to the usefulness of the self-proving affidavit. In this case, the affidavit factually misstated that the witnesses had signed the will when they had not, further demonstrating that the will was not properly executed and cannot be saved by the affidavit.
Analysis:
This case establishes a bright-line rule that strictly separates the substantive requirements of will execution from the procedural convenience of a self-proving affidavit. The decision reinforces the doctrine of strict compliance with statutory formalities in the law of wills, emphasizing that formalities like witness signatures must appear on the testamentary document itself. By refusing to allow the signatures on the affidavit to 'bootstrap' a defective will into validity, the court prevents the self-proving mechanism from becoming a loophole to bypass essential execution requirements. This ruling clarifies for estate planners and testators that the affidavit is a supplement to, not a substitute for, a properly executed will.
