Also known as: holographic instruments · holographic will · holograph
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A testamentary writing that qualifies as a valid will without witnesses or other formalities when the testator's signature and the material portions of the document appear in the testator's handwriting.
Henry Hoffman sat in his truck cab and used a stylus to write out his wishes on the mounted tablet. He formed each letter in his own cursive script, stating that his entire estate should go to his fiancée and nothing to his son. After signing the document in the same handwriting, the tablet synced the record to cloud storage. The probate court admitted the instrument because the signature and material portions remained in Henry's handwriting.
Harold Hunt wrote two short notes on the back of a business card and a pay stub, folded them together in a sealed envelope, and placed them with his papers. The notes changed the distribution of his estate from an earlier typewritten will. After his death his siblings offered the notes for probate as a superseding will. The court treated the handwritten instrument as a valid holographic codicil because the signature and dispositive language were entirely in Harold's handwriting.
Frank Gilbert died testate on June 5, 1979. The appellees are a brother of the testator, a niece and three nephews of the testator, and two beneficiaries unrelated to the testator. The appellants are the testator’s sisters and remaining brothers. Two writings were offered for probate. One was an eight-page typewritten instrument prepared by an attorney and dated April 2, 1976. The other was the holographic instrument dated December 8, 1978, written on the back of a business card and on the back of one of Frank’s pay stubs, which were found folded together in a sealed envelope. The writing on the business card stated that Jim and Margaret had approximately $50,000 in the safe and to see Buzz if anything happens. The pay stub directed that Jim and Margaret receive $20,000 with the rest divided equally among the other living surviving brothers and sisters. The envelope indicated that on December 8, 1978, the card was given to Jim and Margaret stating what to do. Both the typewritten instrument and the holographic instrument were admitted to probate on September 4, 1979, with the holographic instrument being admitted as a codicil. Appellants brought a will contest action in the Jefferson Circuit Court. They sought to have the holographic instrument interpreted as a second and superseding will rather than a codicil. The circuit court held a hearing and entered a judgment construing the second instrument as a codicil affecting only the money Frank kept in his employer’s safe. Appellants appealed from that judgment. The appeal is before the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
View caseThe document qualifies if the testator's signature and the material portions appear in the testator's own handwriting. No witnesses are required. The rule focuses on the handwriting of the dispositive terms to ensure authenticity.
Supporting sources
Printed matter does not invalidate the will when it is surplusage. Courts disregard non-handwritten portions if the handwritten provisions make sense as a will without them. The material portions identifying property and beneficiaries must still be in the testator's handwriting.
Supporting sources
Under the Revised Uniform Probate Code only the material portions need to be handwritten. Immaterial printed words such as boilerplate introductory phrases may remain part of the document. The testator must still sign the instrument.
Supporting sources
…states that section 21351, subdivision (d) does not apply when the donative transfer in question is to the drafter of the instrument. (§ 21351, subds. (d) & (e).)