The Idaho Supreme Court rules that a will is not rendered invalid solely because a witness signed the will after the testator's death, becoming the first Uniform Probate Code jurisdiction court to decide accordingly. In the Matter of the Estate of Miller (Idaho, No. 32660/32661, Dec. 19, 2006).
About four years before his death, Bruce Miller wrote out and executed his will at a local bank. Under the terms of the handwritten will, Mr. Miller's fiancée, Christine Spelius, was the sole beneficiary. The signing was witnessed by Ms. Spelius and a bank employee, but of the two, only the bank employee signed the will. Per Mr. Miller's wishes, Ms. Spelius kept possession of the will.
Mr. Miller died on July 2, 2004, and Ms. Spelius sought to probate the will. On her attorney's advice she signed the will and in the petition she informed the court that the will had been signed after Mr. Miller's death. On September 17, 2004, Inez Hollon, an heir of Mr. Miller, sought to have the will deemed invalid and Mr. Miller declared intestate.
The probate court held that as no time limit was expressed in the relevant state statute, 'the propriety of post-mortem signing could be decided on a case-by-case basis.' After describing what it considered to be relevant factors to consider in making the decision, the magistrate allowed probate of the will and Ms. Hollon appealed. On appeal, the district court acknowledged that no time limit was expressed in the law but remanded the case for consideration of whether Ms. Spelius had signed the will within a reasonable time. Ms. Spelius appealed this decision.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirms the magistrate's admission of the will to probate on the grounds that the legislature did not specify any time limitations and the execution of the will was proper. However, the court rules that neither a case-by-case determination as envisioned by the probate court nor a reasonable-time analysis as proposed by the district court are required because ''¦the legislature has not enacted any requirement as to when the witness must sign, and therefore no such requirement can be imposed by the court.' With this decision, the Idaho Supreme Court becomes the first Uniform Probate Code jurisdiction court to accept the view that the code does not impose such a time requirement on the witness' signing.
Ms. Spelius was represented by ElderLawAnswers member Dennis S. Voorhees of Voorhees Lamure, LLP, in Twin Falls, Idaho.
To download the full text of this decision in PDF format, go to: https://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/miller10.pdf.
(If you do not have the free PDF reader installed on your computer, download it here.)
Click here to read a law review article by Professors Mary Louise Fellows and Gregory S. Alexander of Cornell Law School in support of the decision.
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 1,100 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
