Stevens v. Casdorph
203 W.Va. 450, 508 S.E.2d 610 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a will to be validly executed, the statutory requirements that the testator signs or acknowledges the will in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time, and that the witnesses subscribe the will in the presence of the testator and each other, must be strictly followed.
Facts:
- On May 28, 1996, Homer Haskell Miller, who was elderly and used a wheelchair, was taken to Shawnee Bank by Patricia and Paul Casdorph to execute his will.
- At the bank, Miller signed his will in the presence of one bank employee, Debra Pauley.
- Pauley then took the will to the separate work areas of two other bank employees, Judith Waldron and Reba McGinn, to have them sign as witnesses.
- Both Waldron and McGinn signed the will as requested by Pauley.
- Neither Waldron nor McGinn actually saw Miller sign the will, nor did Miller acknowledge his signature to them.
- Miller remained at Pauley's desk and did not witness Waldron and McGinn signing the will.
- Waldron and McGinn did not sign in each other's presence.
- Homer Haskell Miller died on July 28, 1996, and his will left the bulk of his estate to the Casdorphs.
Procedural Posture:
- Janet Sue Lanham Stevens and other nieces of the decedent (the Stevenses) filed an action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to invalidate the will of Homer Haskell Miller.
- The defendants were the will's primary beneficiaries, Patricia Eileen Casdorph and Paul Douglas Casdorph (the Casdorphs).
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The circuit court (trial court) denied the Stevenses' motion and granted the Casdorphs' cross-motion, ruling that the will was valid.
- The Stevenses (appellants) appealed the circuit court's summary judgment ruling to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
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 satisfy the statutory execution requirements of West Virginia Code § 41-1-3 when the witnesses neither see the testator sign the will nor hear him acknowledge his signature, and the witnesses do not subscribe the will in the presence of the testator or each other?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a will does not satisfy the statutory execution requirements under these circumstances. The plain language of W.Va.Code § 41-1-3 requires that the testator must sign or acknowledge the will in the presence of at least two witnesses present at the same time, and those witnesses must subscribe the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. In this case, it is undisputed that these requirements were not met. The witnesses did not see Miller sign, he did not acknowledge his signature to them, and no one signed or acknowledged their signatures in the presence of the others. The court rejected the argument for substantial compliance, holding that precedent in cases like Black v. Maxwell mandates strict adherence to the statutory formalities. The narrow exception from Wade v. Wade, which allows a witness to acknowledge their prior signature in the presence of the testator and the other witness, does not apply here as no such acknowledgments occurred.
Dissenting - Workman, Justice
Yes, the will should be considered validly executed. The majority's holding represents a 'technocratic approach' that slavishly worships form over substance and thwarts the clear testamentary intent of Mr. Miller where there is no evidence of fraud, coercion, or incapacity. The dissent argues that the concept of 'presence' should be interpreted more broadly and that substantial compliance with the statute is all that should be required, consistent with the spirit of Wade v. Wade. Since all parties were in the same small bank lobby and understood the purpose of the transaction, the attestations occurred 'in the presence' of the testator for all practical purposes. Invalidating a will on such a technicality, when the statute's purpose of preventing fraud is not at risk, is an injustice that abandons common sense.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms West Virginia's adherence to the doctrine of strict compliance for will execution formalities, rejecting the more liberal 'substantial compliance' or 'harmless error' doctrines adopted in other jurisdictions. The court prioritizes the literal text of the statute over the demonstrated intent of the testator, even in the absence of any fraud or undue influence. This ruling serves as a stark reminder to practitioners that any deviation from the precise statutory requirements for witnessing a will can lead to its invalidation. It solidifies the principle that the statutory formalities are mandatory and not mere technicalities that can be overlooked.
