In Re the Estate of Hall

Montana Supreme Court
2002 MT 171, 310 Mont. 486, 51 P.3d 1134 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Montana's version of the Uniform Probate Code, a document that is not properly executed with two attesting witnesses may still be admitted to probate as a valid will if the proponent establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to be their will.

Facts:

James Mylen Hall ('Jim') executed a will in 1984 (the 'Original Will').
In June 1997, Jim and his wife, Betty Lou Hall ('Betty'), met with their attorney, Ross Cannon, to revise a draft of a new joint will (the 'Joint Will').
At the conclusion of the meeting, Jim asked Cannon if the marked-up draft could stand as a valid will until a final version was prepared.
Cannon advised that it could if they signed it and he notarized it, which they proceeded to do.
There were no other individuals present to serve as attesting witnesses during the signing.
Upon returning home from the attorney's office, Jim instructed Betty to destroy his Original Will, and she complied.
Jim died in October 1998.

Procedural Posture:

After James Hall's death, his wife, Betty Hall, applied to informally probate the 1997 Joint Will.
James's daughter, Sandra Ault, objected and petitioned the court for formal probate of the 1984 Original Will.
A will contest was held in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, a state trial court.
The District Court issued an order admitting the Joint Will to probate and finding that the Original Will had been revoked.
Sandra Ault (as Appellant) appealed the District Court's order to the Supreme Court of Montana.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under Montana law, may a will that was not signed by two attesting witnesses be admitted to probate if the proponent provides clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be his will?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Regnier

Yes. A will that lacks the required two attesting witnesses can still be considered valid if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to function as their will. The court acknowledged that the Joint Will was not properly executed under § 72-2-522, MCA, due to the lack of attesting witnesses. However, the court held that this defect was cured by § 72-2-523, MCA, a statutory 'dispensing power' that prioritizes testamentary intent over strict formal compliance. The central issue is not the execution error, but whether Jim intended the document to be his will. The court found clear and convincing evidence of this intent based on several key facts: Jim specifically asked his attorney if the draft could serve as his will, he signed it based on the attorney's affirmative answer, and, most significantly, he directed Betty to destroy his previous will immediately after executing the new one. This act of revocation strongly indicated his intent for the new Joint Will to be legally operative.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the application of the 'harmless error' doctrine in will execution, a key feature of the Uniform Probate Code. The court's decision emphasizes a shift from strict, formalistic compliance with statutory will requirements to a focus on the testator's intent. By holding that strong extrinsic evidence, such as the testator's statements and subsequent actions like destroying a prior will, can satisfy the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard, the court makes it easier to probate wills with technical execution flaws. This precedent affirms that a testator's clear wishes will not be thwarted by an innocent procedural mistake, though it may also encourage litigation centered on proving a decedent's intent.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re the Estate of Hall (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"