Matter of Estate of Johnson
630 P.2d 1039, 1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 431, 129 Ariz. 307 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a document to be a valid holographic will under a statute requiring its "material provisions" to be in the testator's handwriting, the handwritten portions, when considered alone, must demonstrate testamentary intent. If the requisite testamentary intent can only be ascertained by referencing pre-printed language on a form, the will is invalid.
Facts:
- Arnold H. Johnson obtained a pre-printed form titled "THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT."
- Johnson filled in several blank spaces on the form in his own handwriting, including his name, residence, and the date.
- He handwrote the names of several beneficiaries, including his six children, a church, Barton Lee McLain, and Marie Ganssle.
- Next to the beneficiaries' names, he handwrote the fractional share of his estate each was to receive, such as "⅛ of my Estate."
- The pre-printed language of the form contained the key phrases declaring the document to be a will, such as "do make, publish and declare this my last WILL AND TESTAMENT."
- Johnson signed the form, but it was not attested by any witnesses.
- Arnold H. Johnson died on January 28, 1978.
Procedural Posture:
- After Arnold H. Johnson's death, his son, John Mark Johnson, was appointed personal representative of the estate.
- Barton Lee McLain and Marie Ganssle petitioned the trial court to probate a document they claimed was Johnson's holographic will.
- The personal representative objected and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the document was not a valid will.
- McLain and Ganssle filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the personal representative's motion for summary judgment, refusing to admit the document to probate.
- McLain and Ganssle, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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 pre-printed will form with handwritten dispositions qualify as a valid holographic will under A.R.S. § 14-2503 when the words expressing testamentary intent are part of the pre-printed text, not in the testator's handwriting?
Opinions:
Majority - Wren, Chief Judge
No. A pre-printed will form does not qualify as a valid holographic will when the essential words expressing testamentary intent are part of the printed text. A.R.S. § 14-2503 requires that the material provisions of a holographic will be in the testator’s handwriting, which includes the words demonstrating testamentary intent. When the printed portions of the Johnson document are ignored, the remaining handwritten words—a list of names and fractions like "To John M. Johnson ⅛ of my Estate"—are insufficient to express an unambiguous intent to make a testamentary disposition. The words "To" and "estate" are not enough, by themselves, to establish the necessary animus testandi. While enforcing statutory formalities may sometimes defeat a decedent's actual intent, the court's sole consideration in proving a will is whether the legislative mandates have been met.
Concurring - Contreras, Judge
Yes, I am compelled to concur with the majority's legal conclusion, but the result is illogical and defeats the decedent's clear intent. The purpose of the Uniform Probate Code is to simplify the execution of wills and make effective the intent of the decedent. This decision does the opposite, creating a trap for a layperson who uses a pre-printed will form in good faith. The statutory requirements for a holographic will, as interpreted here, are contrary to the practical considerations of individuals trying to dispose of their property without an attorney and justify a reappraisal of the statute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict interpretation of the "material provisions" requirement for holographic wills under the Uniform Probate Code. It establishes that testamentary intent itself is a material provision that must be in the testator's handwriting, setting a high bar for admitting pre-printed forms as holographs. The ruling emphasizes formal compliance over the testator's apparent intent, highlighting the potential conflict between statutory simplification goals and judicial adherence to formalism. This precedent forces courts in similar cases to sever all printed text and analyze whether the remaining handwriting can stand alone as a coherent testamentary instrument.
