Estate of Wong
40 Cal. App. 4th 1198, 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 707 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A document cannot be a valid holographic will unless it contains operative words legally sufficient to create a testamentary devise of property. Ambiguous symbols, such as an arrow, cannot substitute for words of donative intent.
Facts:
- Tai-Kin Wong was a 44-year-old businessman who lived with his girlfriend, Xi Zhao, for three years.
- Wong had a close relationship with his large family, including his father, Kok-Cheong Wong.
- On December 31, 1992, Wong became suddenly ill and died unexpectedly in a hospital emergency room.
- Sometime after his death, a sealed envelope decorated with stickers reading 'You're Special' and 'Love You' was found in a drawer in Wong's office.
- Inside the envelope was a handwritten note that read: 'All Tai-Kin Wong's → Xi Zhao, my best half TKW 12-31-92.'
- The note did not contain any verb of conveyance (e.g., 'give,' 'bequeath') and did not specify what property was the subject of the writing.
Procedural Posture:
- Xi Zhao filed a petition in the trial court to have the handwritten note probated as the will of Tai-Kin Wong.
- Tai-Kin Wong's father, Kok-Cheong Wong, filed a will contest, arguing the document was not a valid will.
- The trial court found that the document constituted a valid holographic will and admitted it to probate.
- Kok-Cheong Wong, the contestant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of California. Xi Zhao, the petitioner, is the respondent.
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 handwritten document containing only the decedent's name, an arrow pointing to a beneficiary's name, an appellation, and a date, but lacking any operative words of conveyance or a description of the property, constitute a valid holographic will?
Opinions:
Majority - Wunderlich, J.
No, a handwritten document lacking operative words of conveyance and a description of property cannot constitute a valid holographic will. To be a valid will, a document must contain operative words legally sufficient to create a devise of property. The document in question fails this requirement because it contains no donative words, such as 'give' or 'bequeath,' and does not describe the property to be transferred. The phrase 'All Tai-Kin Wong's' is fatally ambiguous, as it does not specify what is being conveyed. Furthermore, an arrow is a symbol with no fixed legal meaning and cannot substitute for the necessary words of donative intent. Because the document lacks sufficient words to express a clear testamentary purpose, it cannot, as a matter of law, be recognized as a will.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the formal requirements for testamentary intent in holographic wills, even while acknowledging their informal nature. The court establishes a clear boundary, holding that a document devoid of any operative words of conveyance cannot be saved by extrinsic evidence or judicial interpretation. This ruling emphasizes that while no specific words are required, there must be some language on the face of the document that unambiguously directs the disposition of property upon death. The case serves as a strong precedent against validating writings that rely on ambiguous symbols or phrases to express testamentary intent, thereby promoting certainty in estate law.
