In Re Estate of Watts
67 Ill. App. 3d 463, 384 N.E.2d 589 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a state 'purging' statute, a beneficial interest given in a will to an attesting witness is void unless the will is also attested by a sufficient number of disinterested witnesses. Interested witnesses cannot validate each other's bequests to satisfy the statutory requirement.
Facts:
- Laura Viola Watts created a will devising personal property and money to several beneficiaries, including Virginia Warren.
- The will named Carl Manhart as the sole beneficiary of the residuary estate.
- Virginia Warren and Frank Warren were named as contingent beneficiaries of the residuary estate.
- The will was attested (witnessed) exclusively by Carl Manhart, Virginia Warren, and Frank Warren, all of whom were beneficiaries.
- Laura Viola Watts later died.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Manhart, Virginia Warren, and Frank Warren petitioned the Circuit Court of Coles County to admit the will of Laura Viola Watts to probate.
- The circuit court admitted the will to probate and found Melvin and Arnold Fitzpatrick to be the decedent's heirs at law.
- No appeal was taken from the probate order, and no will contest was filed within the six-month statutory period.
- The co-executors later filed a complaint for a declaration of rights in the same trial court.
- The trial court issued an order upholding the validity of all bequests in the will and ordering distribution accordingly.
- Melvin and Arnold Fitzpatrick, the heirs at law, appealed the trial court's order to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District.
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 state statute that voids any beneficial interest given to an attesting witness, unless the will is otherwise attested by a sufficient number of disinterested witnesses, invalidate the bequests to all three attesting witnesses who are also the primary and contingent beneficiaries under the will?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Craven
Yes. The statute voids the bequests to the attesting witnesses because the will was not attested by any disinterested witnesses. The statute requires that for a bequest to an attesting witness to be valid, the will must be attested by a sufficient number of credible witnesses exclusive of that interested person. The court rejected the argument that interested witnesses could 'bootstrap' each other's interests, reasoning that the strong policy behind the statute requires genuinely disinterested attestation. Since all three attesting witnesses (Manhart, V. Warren, and F. Warren) held beneficial interests, and there were no other witnesses, the specific and residuary bequests to them are void. These voided interests will instead pass by the laws of intestacy to the decedent's heirs at law, Melvin and Arnold Fitzpatrick.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets Illinois's interested witness statute, reinforcing the strong public policy against potential fraud or undue influence by beneficiaries who are involved in the will's execution. It clarifies that the exception for having 'sufficient' other witnesses requires those other witnesses to be disinterested, preventing a workaround where multiple interested parties attest for one another. This holding solidifies the 'purging' nature of the statute: the will itself remains valid, but the specific bequests to the interested witnesses are purged (voided), with that property passing via intestacy. This case serves as a crucial reminder for estate planners about the formalities of will execution and the importance of using neutral, disinterested witnesses.
