Matter of Estate of Johnson
1981 Ariz. App. LEXIS 431, 129 Ariz. 307, 630 P.2d 1039 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an instrument on a pre-printed form to be a valid holographic will, the handwritten portions alone, without reference to the printed text, must demonstrate the testator's testamentary intent and contain all material provisions of the disposition.
Facts:
- Arnold H. Johnson obtained a pre-printed will form.
- On March 22, 1977, Johnson filled in several blanks on the form in his own handwriting.
- The pre-printed text included phrases like 'THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT' and 'I give devise and bequeath to...'.
- In the handwritten portions, Johnson identified himself, named six of his children, and two other individuals, Barton Lee McLain and Marie Ganssle, as beneficiaries.
- Johnson's handwriting specified the fractional share of his estate each beneficiary was to receive.
- The instrument was not signed by any witnesses.
- Arnold H. Johnson died on January 28, 1978.
- Following his death, the instrument he had filled out was presented as his will.
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 (appellants) petitioned the trial court for formal probate of an instrument dated March 22, 1977.
- The personal representative objected and filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the instrument was not a valid will.
- Appellants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting the document was a valid holographic will.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the personal representative, refusing to admit the instrument to probate.
- Appellants McLain and Ganssle appealed the trial court's decision.
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 will written on a pre-printed form qualify as a valid holographic will under A.R.S. § 14-2503 if the words expressing testamentary intent are part of the pre-printed text, and only the names of beneficiaries and the property distribution are in the testator's handwriting?
Opinions:
Majority - Wren, Chief Judge.
No, the instrument does not qualify as a valid holographic will. For a will on a printed form to be a valid holograph, the material provisions, including the expression of testamentary intent, must be in the testator's handwriting. Here, if all printed language is ignored, the remaining handwritten portions consist only of a list of names and fractional shares (e.g., 'To John M. Johnson ⅛ of my Estate'). These handwritten words, standing alone, do not express an 'animus testandi'—an intent for the document to serve as a will effective upon death. The words that establish this requisite intent ('LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT,' 'I give devise and bequeath') are all pre-printed. Unlike in cases such as Estate of Blake, there are no additional handwritten words like 'SAVE THIS' or an unusually formal signature to independently support testamentary intent. Because the printed words are essential to understanding the document's testamentary nature, the statutory requirements for a holographic will have not been met, and strict compliance with these legislative mandates is required.
Concurring - Contreras, Judge.
No, the instrument is not a valid holographic will under established legal principles, but this outcome is contrary to the purpose of the Uniform Probate Code. While the majority's conclusion is legally correct based on precedent and statutory interpretation, it defeats the clear intent of the decedent. The purpose of the Uniform Probate Code is to simplify will execution and effectuate the testator's intent whenever possible. The strict application of the holographic will statute here creates an illogical result, turning a common-sense act by a layperson using a store-bought form into an invalid disposition. This outcome highlights a need to reappraise the statutory requirements for holographic wills to avoid frustrating the testamentary wishes of individuals who use such forms in good faith.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'material provisions' requirement under the Uniform Probate Code for holographic wills executed on pre-printed forms. It establishes a strict 'surplusage' test, holding that handwritten portions must be able to stand alone to express testamentary intent without relying on any printed text. This ruling serves as a significant caution against using stationer's will forms for unwitnessed holographic wills, as it narrowly construes what constitutes a valid holograph. The case exemplifies the traditional tension in wills law between the policy of strictly adhering to statutory formalities and the modern trend of effectuating the testator's probable intent.
