Estate of Tracy
182 p.2d 336, 1947 Cal. App. LEXIS 1388, 80 Cal. App. 2d 782 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory requirement that a will be signed by witnesses in the testator's 'presence' is satisfied under the 'conscious presence' rule, which does not require the testator to actually see the witnesses sign, but rather requires that the witnesses sign within the testator's hearing, the testator knows what is being done, and the signing constitutes one continuous transaction.
Facts:
- On July 18, 1945, Nell B. Tracy executed a will naming Janice Lehman as a beneficiary.
- On September 30, 1945, Tracy, who was terminally ill with cancer and confined to her bed in a small bedroom, decided to revoke her will.
- Tracy signed a revocation document in her bedroom in front of her nurse, Eeba Thornton, and a neighbor, Leora B. Blot, and requested they sign as witnesses.
- Because there was no convenient place to sign in the bedroom, Tracy instructed the two witnesses to take the document into the adjoining dining room and sign it on the table.
- The witnesses walked approximately 20 feet into the dining room and affixed their signatures to the revocation document.
- From her bed, Tracy could hear the witnesses and was aware they were signing the document as she had instructed, but she could not physically see them sign it.
- After the signing, one witness returned to the bedroom, and Tracy expressed her satisfaction that the will had been revoked.
- Nell B. Tracy died on October 14, 1945.
Procedural Posture:
- Janice Lehman, the proponent, filed a petition in the probate court (trial court) to admit Nell B. Tracy's will to probate.
- The probate court found that the will had been validly revoked by a subsequent written instrument.
- The probate court entered an order denying Lehman's petition for admission of the will to probate.
- Janice Lehman, as the appellant, appealed the probate court's order to the appellate 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 the statutory requirement that witnesses sign a will in the testator's 'presence' require the testator to actually see the act of signing, or is the requirement satisfied when the testator is aware of the witnesses' actions, can hear them, and the signing is part of one continuous transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - McComb, J.
No, the statutory requirement that witnesses sign in the testator's 'presence' does not require that the testator actually see the act of signing. The requirement is satisfied under the 'conscious presence' rule, where the testator is aware of the witnesses' actions and the signing is part of a single, continuous transaction. The court reasoned that 'presence' is not limited to line-of-sight and adopted the 'conscious presence' rule, which requires three elements: (1) the witnesses must sign within the testator’s hearing, (2) the testator must know what is being done, and (3) the signing by the witnesses and the testator must constitute one continuous transaction. In this case, all elements were met. Tracy heard the witnesses, knew they were signing the revocation she had just executed, and the entire process was one continuous event. Therefore, the revocation document was validly executed in her presence.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the 'conscious presence' rule in California for the execution and revocation of wills. By moving away from a strict 'line of sight' test, the court established a more flexible and practical standard that focuses on the testator's mental awareness rather than their physical vantage point. This decision provides greater protection for the testamentary intent of individuals who may be physically incapacitated, such as the elderly or ill, ensuring their wills are not invalidated simply because they could not physically see the witnesses sign. The ruling aligns California with a modern trend in probate law and clarifies a key formality of will execution for future cases.
