In Re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Ranney
124 N.J. 1, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 35, 589 A.2d 1339 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will may be admitted to probate, despite a failure to adhere to statutory signature formalities, if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the will substantially complies with the statutory requirements and reflects the testator's intent.
Facts:
- On October 26, 1982, Russell G. Ranney visited his attorney's office to execute his last will and testament.
- Russell's will consisted of four pages, with a separate fifth page containing a self-proving affidavit.
- In the presence of two witnesses, John Schuster III and Laura Stout, Russell declared the instrument to be his will and requested they act as witnesses.
- Russell signed the fourth page of the will.
- The witnesses, Schuster and Stout, did not sign the fourth page of the will.
- Instead, Russell, Schuster, and Stout all signed the fifth page, the self-proving affidavit, which was then notarized.
- Both witnesses believed they were properly attesting the will when they signed the affidavit.
- After Russell's death, his wife, Betty McGregor, challenged the validity of the will, arguing it was not properly witnessed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Monmouth County Surrogate admitted Russell G. Ranney's will to probate.
- Betty McGregor, the testator's wife, contested the probate in the Superior Court, Law Division, Probate Part.
- The Law Division reversed the Surrogate's order, finding the will invalid because it was not properly signed by two witnesses as required by statute.
- The proponents of the will appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the Law Division, holding that the self-proving affidavit could be considered part of the will, and remanded for a hearing.
- The contestant, Betty McGregor, petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which was granted.
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 if the attesting witnesses signed an attached self-proving affidavit but not the will itself, as required by N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
Yes. A will that does not strictly comply with statutory signature requirements may be admitted to probate under the doctrine of substantial compliance. The court first rejected the appellate court's reasoning that signatures on the self-proving affidavit literally satisfy the statute, explaining that attestation clauses and self-proving affidavits serve different functions and were intended by the legislature to be distinct. However, the court formally adopted the doctrine of substantial compliance, holding that rigid insistence on statutory formalities can frustrate the primary purpose of the Wills Act, which is to ensure a document reflects the testator's uncoerced intent. Citing the Uniform Probate Code, the Restatement (Second) of Property, and a modern trend away from 'harsh and relentless formalism,' the court concluded that a formal defect should not lead to automatic invalidity. Instead, it should lead to an inquiry into whether the document expresses the decedent’s testamentary intent and sufficiently approximates the statutory formalities. Therefore, the will may be probated if proponents prove by clear and convincing evidence that its execution fulfilled the underlying purposes of the statutory requirements. The case was remanded for a hearing in solemn form to determine if such evidence exists.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally adopting the doctrine of substantial compliance for will execution in New Jersey. It marks a shift from a strict, literal interpretation of the Wills Act to a more functional, intent-serving approach. By allowing courts to probate a will with minor, formal defects, the decision provides a remedy against the harsh outcome of invalidating a will that clearly represents the testator's wishes. However, the ruling also creates a higher burden for proponents of such wills, requiring them to prove substantial compliance by clear and convincing evidence, potentially leading to more frequent and complex probate litigation over formally defective wills.
