In re Snide
undisclosed (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When identical, reciprocal wills are mistakenly signed by the wrong testator during a single execution ceremony, a court may reform the will to reflect the testator's clear intent and admit it to probate, provided the mistake is obvious and there is no evidence of fraud.
Facts:
- Harvey Snide and his wife, Rose Snide, intended to execute mutual wills at a common ceremony.
- Their attorney prepared two wills with identical dispositive provisions, with Harvey's will leaving his estate to Rose and Rose's will leaving her estate to Harvey.
- During the execution ceremony, Harvey and Rose were mistakenly presented with each other's wills in separate envelopes.
- Without anyone reading the documents to catch the error, Harvey Snide inadvertently signed the will prepared for Rose, and Rose signed the will prepared for Harvey.
- The attesting witnesses signed both documents.
- After Harvey Snide died, the will he had signed was discovered, which identified Rose as the testator and Harvey as the sole beneficiary.
- Harvey was survived by his wife Rose and three children, one of whom was a minor.
Procedural Posture:
- Rose Snide, the proponent, offered the instrument Harvey Snide signed for probate in the Surrogate's Court.
- The guardian ad litem representing the minor child objected to the will's admission.
- The Surrogate's Court admitted the will to probate and ordered it reformed by swapping the names 'Harvey' and 'Rose' where they appeared.
- The objectant (guardian ad litem) appealed the Surrogate Court's decision to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the Surrogate Court's order on the law, holding the instrument could not be admitted to probate.
- Rose Snide, as the appellant, then appealed to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a will be admitted to probate and reformed by the court when a decedent, intending to execute a reciprocal will, mistakenly signs the identical will of his spouse during a joint execution ceremony?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
Yes. A will mistakenly signed by the testator during a joint execution of identical, reciprocal wills may be admitted to probate and reformed. The court rejected a formalistic view that testamentary intent attaches irrevocably to the specific physical document signed, holding instead that it attaches to the overall testamentary scheme. Here, the testator's intent was clear and undisputed, as the two wills were identical except for the names of the testator and beneficiary. Considering the wills together, along with the circumstances of their contemporaneous execution, reveals the obvious nature of the mistake. Given that there was absolutely no danger of fraud, refusing to admit the will to probate would elevate formalism over substance and lead to an unjust result, nullifying a clear testamentary plan.
Dissenting - Jones, J.
No. A will that the testator did not intend to execute cannot be admitted to probate, regardless of the clarity of his intentions. The Statute of Wills requires strict compliance with prescribed formalities to protect testators from fraud, even if this sometimes frustrates a decedent's wishes. The court's role is to probate the specific paper writing the testator signed, and Harvey Snide clearly did not intend for the document he signed to be his will. The majority's decision is an instance of 'hard cases make bad law,' departing from established precedent and creating a slippery slope that could lead courts to improperly reform other wills based on extrinsic evidence, thereby undermining the certainty and protection the statutory formalities are meant to provide.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional, strict-constructionist approach to the Statute of Wills, which historically prioritized formal execution requirements over the testator's intent. The court carved out a narrow equitable exception for a specific, clear-cut mistake involving switched identical wills, signaling a greater willingness to consider extrinsic evidence to prevent an obviously unjust result. This ruling prioritizes effectuating a testator's undisputed intent over rigid adherence to statutory formalities, setting a precedent that may influence courts in future cases involving clear clerical or execution errors where there is no risk of fraud.
