Eslick v. Wodicka
1948 Tenn. App. LEXIS 95, 215 S.W.2d 12, 31 Tenn. App. 333 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Tennessee's will execution statute, attesting witnesses must physically sign the will in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each other. Acknowledging signatures previously made at separate times and places is insufficient to validate the will.
Facts:
- On or about July 8, 1946, Dave Hipsh signed his typewritten will in his room in the presence of only Morgan Eslick.
- Hipsh and Eslick then located G. H. Scott on the Public Square, where Scott signed the will as the first attesting witness.
- The other intended witness, C. N. Jackson, was not present when Scott signed.
- The next morning, Eslick and Jackson went to Hipsh's room, where Jackson signed the will as the second attesting witness.
- G. H. Scott was not present when Jackson signed.
- A few days later, Hipsh, Scott, and Jackson met casually at a band stand, where Hipsh thanked them for signing his will. The will itself was not present during this conversation.
- About three weeks before his death, Hipsh gave the signed instrument to Eslick.
- Dave Hipsh died on March 18, 1947.
Procedural Posture:
- Morgan Eslick offered Dave Hipsh's purported will for probate in common form in the County Court of Lincoln County.
- The County Court, a court of first instance, refused probate because the will was not properly executed.
- Eslick appealed the refusal to the circuit court.
- While the appeal was pending, Eslick filed a separate petition in the County Court to probate the will in solemn form.
- The county judge sustained the defendants' plea of former suit pending and dismissed the second petition.
- Eslick appealed the second dismissal to the circuit court, which consolidated the two cases.
- Following a trial where the jury could not reach a verdict, the circuit court judge granted a directed verdict for the plaintiff, Eslick, declaring the will valid.
- The defendants' motion for a new trial was overruled, and they appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
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 will satisfy the statutory requirement that attesting witnesses sign 'in the presence of each other' when they sign the instrument at different times and in different places, and later casually acknowledge their signatures to the testator without the will being present?
Opinions:
Majority - Hickerson, J.
No. The will does not satisfy the statutory requirement because the plain language of the statute mandates that attesting witnesses must physically sign the will in the presence of each other, not merely acknowledge their separate, prior signatures. The court's reasoning is based on a strict construction of the Tennessee statute governing will execution. The statute explicitly provides an alternative for the testator, who may either sign or acknowledge his signature in the presence of witnesses. However, the statute provides no such alternative for the witnesses, instead stating they 'must sign' in the presence of the testator and each other. The court reasoned that the legislature's deliberate omission of an 'acknowledgment' option for witnesses demonstrates an intent to require their simultaneous presence and act of signing. This strict requirement serves as a safeguard against fraud and deception, which could arise if subsequent, informal acknowledgments without the will present were deemed sufficient.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule for will attestation in Tennessee, rejecting any form of substantial compliance in favor of strict adherence to statutory formalities. The court's analysis emphasizes that the specific actions required by the Wills Act are mandatory safeguards against fraud and cannot be substituted by acts that may seem equivalent. This ruling solidifies the importance of the witnesses' concurrent presence during the act of signing, creating a clear but rigid standard for practitioners. Future cases involving will execution formalities in this jurisdiction will be bound by this strict interpretation, making it difficult to probate a will with any procedural defect in its attestation, even if the testator's intent is undisputed.
Unlock the full brief for Eslick v. Wodicka