In re the Estate of Dehn
347 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1655, 75 Misc. 2d 85 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an instrument to be a valid will, it must not only meet all statutory formalities of execution but must also have been executed with testamentary intent, meaning the decedent intended that specific instrument to take effect as their final will upon death. The presence or absence of testamentary intent is a question of fact determined by examining all surrounding circumstances, including the testator's actions and statements.
Facts:
- Edgar Pehn, the decedent, was a retired professor who lived a transient lifestyle, spending long periods in Europe after his retirement.
- Pehn handwrote at least six different documents purporting to be his will, three dated '22 May 1965' and three dated 'Christmas 1965', all of which were labeled 'Copy'.
- He distributed these various documents to several different people in Germany, including Professor von Sievers and Werner Jackh, whom he had met only recently in connection with his interest in establishing a charitable foundation.
- Pehn's communications with the recipients of the documents focused on seeking their advice for creating a foundation, using the 'wills' as discussion drafts.
- In 1967, Pehn consulted a New York attorney, Dr. Syz, about preparing a formal will and creating a foundation, providing him with a photocopy of one of the 'Christmas 1965' documents.
- After the consultation, Pehn sent Dr. Syz a postcard canceling a follow-up appointment, stating, 'I am aware of the risk I take, but having done it for years, a few more months may not matter much.'
- During a conversation with Werner Jackh's wife, Pehn stated, 'I always have my Last Will at hand,' but then added that 'No person will ever find it.'
- Pehn died in Switzerland in 1968 without having finalized a will with Dr. Syz or formally establishing the planned foundation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Public Administrator initially filed a petition in the Surrogate's Court seeking the denial of probate for an instrument dated '22 May 1965,' which was found among the decedent's effects.
- The court denied probate for the '22 May 1965' instrument by a decree dated November 5, 1969.
- Subsequently, during an investigation into an alleged claimant, the Public Administrator discovered two additional instruments, each entitled 'My Last Will — Copy—Christmas 1965.'
- The Public Administrator filed a new petition in the Surrogate's Court to probate these two 'Christmas 1965' instruments.
- An alleged claimant and a guardian ad litem for unknown distributees filed objections to the petition, raising issues including lack of due execution, testamentary capacity, and testamentary intent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do handwritten documents, each entitled 'My Last Will — Copy,' which comply with the formal requirements of a holographic will under the law of the place of execution, constitute a valid will when the decedent's actions and statements indicate they were drafts or proposals rather than a final testamentary instrument?
Opinions:
Majority - Otto C. Jaeger, S.
No. The handwritten documents, despite meeting the formal requirements of a holographic will under Belgian law, do not constitute a valid will because the decedent lacked the requisite testamentary intent. The court found that for an instrument to be a valid will, the testator must intend for that specific document to be their final testamentary disposition, which was not the case here. The court reasoned that the central issue was not formal validity but testamentary intent. Pehn’s actions—creating and distributing multiple, slightly different 'copies' to various acquaintances primarily to solicit advice for a future foundation—strongly suggest the documents were merely drafts or proposals. His statements to his attorney ('a few more months may not matter much') and to Mrs. Jackh ('No person will ever find it') further confirmed that he knew he did not have a finalized will, believing it existed only in his mind. The court distinguished this case from others where documents labeled 'copy' were probated, noting that here the existence of multiple, scattered drafts and the decedent's own declarations negated any finding of final testamentary intent.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical distinction between the formal validity of a will and the substantive requirement of testamentary intent. It demonstrates that courts will look beyond the four corners of an instrument, even one that meets all technical execution requirements, to determine if the testator truly intended it to be their final will. The decision affirms that testamentary intent is a question of fact, allowing for a comprehensive inquiry into the decedent's actions, statements, and surrounding circumstances. This fact-intensive approach means that labels like 'copy' are not dispositive and provides courts with flexibility to deny probate to documents that, despite their form, do not reflect a finalized testamentary plan.
