Signing a Will

In order to be validly executed, a will needs to be signed by the testator, by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction or the testator's conservator pursuant to a court order. Probate Code §6110(b). Typically the signatory on the will is that of the testator. In a will contest, the genuineness of the testator's signature can occasionally be at issue. A recent unpublished appellate decision touched upon the testator's alleged execution of her will.

"After decedent Diane Carreira died on August 26, 2022, appellant Emily Mendoza petitioned to admit to probate a document entitled "Power of Attorney and Last Will and Testament of Diane Carreira," dated August 23, 2022. The probate court determined that the will was not valid because Carreira had not signed it. The court found in the alternative that, even if Carreira had properly executed the document, it was still invalid under the conclusive presumption of fraud or undue influence that applies when the drafter of a will is also a beneficiary." 

Typically a handwriting expert is retained to opine as to whether or not the testator in fact signed the will. This case was no different.

"Mendoza testified that she drafted the will during a phone call with Carreira on the Monday before Carreira died. Carreira "pretty much" told her what to put in the will, although Mendoza "added details," including names and terminology. Mendoza testified that she took the document to Carreira, who signed it while inclined in bed. Mendoza said she was familiar with Carreira's signature and recognized the signature on the will as being hers." 

"Substantial evidence supports the probate court's finding that Carreira did not sign the will that Mendoza proffered. Lilinoe-Davis's expert witness testified that Carreira's signature was not genuine based on several characteristics distinguishing the signature on the will from other known exemplars of Carreira's signature. These distinguishing characteristics were not explained by Carreira's illness or the fact that she purportedly signed the will in bed. Lilinoe-Davis also provided her own lay opinion that the signature on the will did not resemble Carreira's signature. The testimony of these two witnesses provided substantial evidence that the signature was not genuine. Mendoza emphasizes her own testimony that she saw Carreira sign the will, but it was within the probate court's purview to weigh the conflicting evidence. (Estate of Clark (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 110, 119 [handwriting expert testimony provided substantial evidence to reject will, despite contrary testimony of other witnesses]; Estate of Kisling (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 163, 166-167 [handwriting expert testimony and court's own examination of signature were substantial evidence to overcome contrary testimony of two witnesses].)"

Estate of Diane Carreira, Siskiyou County Superior Court case no. SCCV-CVPB-2022-973 

Holographic Will

A recent unpublished appellate opinion addressed the validity of a holographic will that was executed roughly 45 days before the testator passed away. The testator executed a holographic will on November 8, 2017 and passed away on December 25, 2018. So in 2021, this was case still ongoing..........

Interestingly the testator, a California attorney, had written two prior holographic wills. 

"Edward, a lawyer, drafted three holographic wills, each on a single piece of paper from a legal pad. The first two, drafted in July 2014 and December 2016, were written neatly, with few spelling and grammatical errors. They left either $40,000 (July 2014 will) or $75,000 (December 2016 will) to Barbara, with the remainder of Edward's estate going to his sister Marcia. Both wills also provided contingencies for what would occur should either Barbara or Marcia predecease Edward. The December 2016 will additionally revoked Edward's previous will, and named an executor (Marcia, or Randi Sue Berger (Marcia's daughter) should Marcia predecease Edward).

The Contested Will, drafted on November 8, 2017, read:      

"My Last Will and Testiment [sic]      

"I Edward M Sherman, hereby giives [sic] to Barbara Garrison my home at 15743 Hesby Strreet [sic], Encino, California 91436 and all my other money and possesions [sic].      

"Nov. 8, 2017      

"This is my last Will and Testiment this [sic].  

"Edward Martin Sherman"  

It is uncommon in a will contest to have two prior holographic wills. Still, this circumstance was quite elucidating when determining whether the contested will was valid or not. That is, the litigants and their experts reviewed the prior two holographic wills to see how the contested will was analogous or distinguishable.

For example, an expert witness in this case, a medical doctor, opined "that the misspellings in the Contested Will, along with the way the writing did not stay within the lines, raised concerns about the writer's cognitive abilities. He had no concerns regarding the July 2014 and December 2016 wills, noting they were more thorough, in-depth, and legible, compared to the Contested Will."

Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the testator lacked sufficient testamentary capacity to write and execute a holographic will. 

Estate of Edward Martin Sherman, Los Angeles County Superior Court case # 18STPB03628.

Holographic Will

A holographic (i.e. hand-written) will is permitted in California provided the material provisions are in the testator's hand-writing (the person writing the will) and is signed by the testator. Probate Code §6111(a).

A recent unpublished appellate opinion focused on the signature's location in the holographic will.

The holographic will in question read:

"I Harry Edward Mitchell of [¶] Being Sound Man, Quit Claim my wife [¶] Debra Mitchell the house at [¶] 21600 Calle Degado Yorba Linda [¶] And all contents and cars [¶] At the residents."

The objectors of the will argued that the will was invalid primarily because it lacked a signature. The appellate court disagreed and held that the lack of a signature was not fatal to the will's validity. A prior case, Estate of Williams (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 197, held that writing one's name at the top of the document satisfied the signature requirement if the document was otherwise complete. Similarly here, the testator had written his name at the top of the document and it was otherwise complete. While the will's verbiage was not grammatically sound, i.e. "at the residents," the tesator's intent was clear. The testator wanted to leave the majority (if not all) of his estate to his spouse.

Estate of Mitchell, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017-00896904.   

If hypothetically the holographic will was invalid, Mr. Mitchell would have died intestate (without a will). Consequently, his community property would have been distributed to his surviving spouse, the petitioner in this matter. Probate Code §6401. Mr. Mitchell's separate property would have been distributed to his surviving spouse and his children, the objectors in this matter. Probate Code §6402.  

I should mention that this case had two variables which portend litigation, a step-parent/step-child relationship and a holographic will. In the case of the latter component, a holographic will does not require attestation. Thus, it is entirely possible that the testator can write their will privately whereby it is a complete mystery to everybody on earth. Naturally relatives and friends might hear about such a will, but there is no person who can definitively say that they saw the testator sign their will in their presence and they signed such document as a witness.

Filing a Will

It is seldom a prudent decision to delay filing a document. The law imposes a statute of limitations on parties to submit documents in a timely fashion or else their claim is time-barred. The following unpublished appellate opinion highlights what happens when a party waits too long to file: 

"Appellant Gregory Smith challenges the court's determination that his attempt to introduce a copy of a holographic will into probate of the estate of his mother, Helen Louise Smith, was untimely under Probate Code section 8226. Section 8226, subdivision (c)(1), requires the proponent of a will to petition for probate within 120 days of an order determining the decedent to be intestate. Here, Gregory filed a petition for probate of the holographic will over 11 months after the court determined Helen died intestate. Despite the late filing, Gregory appeals the court's decision that the filing of the petition was untimely even assuming Gregory was entitled to the benefit of equitable tolling to extend the statute of limitations period."

The following excerpt encapsulates Mr. Smith's problem:

"The trial court assumed that attorney Schultz's possession of the holographic will for roughly six months served as an impediment to Gregory's filing the petition for probate. The trial court even further assumed that the tolling event continued until Gregory's March 24, 2016, meeting with Lee, after he received the will back from Schultz on March 7, 2016. At that meeting, Gregory was expressly advised by the estate attorney to get his own attorney if he wished to proceed on the holographic will. Even so, over 120 days passed before Gregory filed the petition for probate. Using the latest possible date of March 24, 2016, the 120-day filing deadline expired on July 22, 2016, and Gregory filed the petition on August 3, 2016.  

At the time of the March 24, 2016, meeting, Gregory was in personal possession of the holographic will. The trial court found that Lee advised Gregory to obtain his own counsel to act should he wish to pursue his rights to admit the holographic will into probate. No impediments prevented Gregory from petitioning the court at that time. His delay of more than 120 days in filing the petition evinces a lack of diligence separate and apart from any impediment created by Schultz. Despite having possession of the holographic will and express notice from Lee that he needed to act should he wish to enter the holographic will into probate, Gregory failed to act promptly."

Estate of Smith, Tuolumne County Superior Court Case # PR11349

Holographic Will

This unpublished appellate opinion demonstrates how certain facts ostensibly entice litigation.  

Callahan v. Callahan, Los Angeles Superior Court Case # BP108910.  

John Callahan was originally  married to Pauline Callahan for many years. Pauline passed away in 1999.

"John and Angela Callahan met in early February 2000 when she became John's caregiver. They were married on September 26, 2000. John did not inform his children of the marriage until 2003."

There are a couple of interesting facts just from the above paragraph. First, John married his caretaker. I would venture to say that most caretakers do not marry their care recipients. Second, John married her within 7 months of meeting her. That would constitute a whirlwind romance. Third, John did not mention his marriage to his children. As a parent, I would tell my child if I re-married. 

"On December 9, 2006, John executed a holographic will providing that upon his death, Angela would receive a life interest in his home where they lived. When Angela died, the house was to be conveyed to John's four children, with an interest also given to Ethel Meneses, Angela's daughter from her first marriage."

Again an interesting fact. John wrote a holographic will. I have never advised a client, who has sufficient time, to draft a holographic will. A holographic will is almost always an ill-conceived idea. I have never met, and I doubt I ever will, a non-lawyer with a firm grasp of probate law. Thus, the person pens the holographic will under the erroneous assumption that the document is clear, concise and enforceable. Typically a holographic will lacks at least one, if not all, of those aforementioned attributes.    

"On December 15, 2007, John signed a holographic will giving both Angela and Ethel a life estate in his home, with the property passing after their deaths to John's children. John suffered a heart attack on December 17, 2007, and died on December 27, 2007.

In February 2008 Angela filed a petition for probate of the 2007 will and for letters of administration with will annexed, as well as a petition to administer John's estate. She attached a copy of the 2007 will to the petition for probate. John's children objected to the admission to probate of the will, to Angela's request to be appointed personal representative to administer John's estate." 

In hindsight, John and Angela should've consulted with an attorney in regards to their estate plan. Since more than a year elapsed between the drafting of the 1st and 2nd holographic wills, there was ample time to find a suitable attorney. If an attorney had been retained, the likelihood of litigation would've decreased. By opting for the holographic will route, the facts almost invited a lawsuit.

Interpretation of a Will

Santa Clara County Superior Court

Words matter. Words in a will matter more you could say. This brings us to the story of a recent unpublished appellate decision regarding the interpretation of a will.  This stemmed from a trial court decision in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Case # PR128527.

The late Ethel Josephine Hinz penned a will entirely in her own handwriting. The holographic will read, in its entirety, as follows:

"I, Ethel Josephine Hinz; aka as E.J. Hinz; declare that this will, is my only and last testament. 

"I, name my son, Lester F. Hinz, Jr., as sole heir and executor to manage estate affairs. 

"In the event of any challenges to said estate, I hereby authorize said Executor to dispense the amount of $1.00, one dollar, to any claimant. 

"I am confident that my son, as Executor, will also subscribe to my wishes, along lines that were discussed previously and privately in the past. A simple cremation, without ceremony is the wish of Ethel J. Hinz."

Since the value of the estate exceeded $10M, there were naturally interested parties in this matter. These parties included Lester's wife and two grandchildren of Ms. Hinz (Lester passed away after his mother). The three of them composed the heirs of Ms. Hinz's estate.

The crux here revolved around the phrase "I, name my son, Lester F. Hinz, Jr., as sole heir and executor to manage estate affairs." The trial court invalidated the will as it found that extrinsic evidence could not resolve the ambiguities regarding the aforementioned phrase. The will was found to be ambiguous because it was not clear if Ms. Hinz intended for Lester to be the sole beneficiary or was acknowledging that Lester was her sole child. Due to extrinsic evidence not yielding a clear answer of what Ms. Hinz meant, the trial court invalidated the will. Therefore, Ms. Hinz's estate passed by intestate succession to her heirs, i.e. Lester's wife and her Ms. Hinz's two grandchildren. However, Lester's wife appealed the decision to the 6th District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the trial court's decision was reversed. 

The majority opinion found that the will was unambiguous, i.e. the only interpretation of the word "heir" as used in the will was "beneficiary." Therefore, the Court of Appeal found the will to be valid and instructed the trial court to award 100% of Ms. Hinz's estate to Lester's wife.          

For reference, if you use a $10M valuation figure, the trial court would've awarded the estate as follows:

1. Lester's wife - $5M
2. Ms. Hinz's grandchild - $2.5M
3. Ms. Hinz's grandchild - $2.5M

Following the appellate court's ruling, the distribution would go

1. Lester's wife - $10M
2. Ms. Hinz's grandchild - $0
3. Ms. Hinz's grandchild - $0

Kind of a big difference.

Granted, Ms. Hinz's grandchild can always appeal this decision to the CA Supreme Court or petition for a re-hearing.

The Dangers of Do It Yourself (DIY) Estate Planning

The Eternal Struggle: Client, Attorney and Fees

A common reason why some people balk at writing a trust or will through an attorney is because of the cost. The familiar refrain goes that why pay an attorney in excess of a thousand dollars when you can find a document online or just draft something yourself, a holographic instrument. Furthermore, a self-represented person does not have to meet with the attorney multiple times to review the documents and can conclude the process rather expediently.

One of the pitfalls with this line of thinking, there are many, is that a person almost always does not fully understand the ramifications of their decisions. A hypothetical fill-in document can be completed in mere minutes but can have a lasting effect. Moreover, there is no second chance opportunity when writing a trust or will essentially. A court is very reluctant to re-write a testamentary instrument. So do it once, do it right.

Whereas an attorney can advise a client on the various issues raised by an important testamentary decision, e.g. leave everything to my children at age 25, a self-represented person often fails to grasp such. The following are instances of mistakes I have seen a self-represented person make on their testamentary document that could've been easily avoided if they had hired an attorney.

A terminally ill parent wanted to leave their home to ostensibly their daughter. In the distribution clause of the trust, the parent named the daughter as the sole beneficiary. Yet on the trust's schedule of assets, the father listed the house as being equally split between the daughter and granddaughter, a minor. The daughter sought counsel for a Heggstad petition because the father had not transferred title to his trust prior to his passing. The obvious problem was the contradictory distribution scheme, i.e. was the house to go to the daughter exclusively or was it to be split equally between daughter and granddaughter? Any competent attorney would have spotted this clear inconsistency and counseled their client to correct this ambiguity before signing the document. 

A mother wrote a trust through an attorney that names her two children, son and daughter, as the primary beneficiaries with her grandchildren as the contingent remainder beneficiaries. A year later, she amends her trust through the same attorney, but does not alter the existing distribution scheme. That is, the amended trust still stated that the estate goes to her two children and her grandchildren are the contingent remainder beneficiaries  A few years later, the mother writes a rambling unsigned holographic document that designates the daughter as the sole beneficiary of her estate basically. Son naturally objects to the enforceability of the holographic document and prevailed in court. The obvious red flags were that the document was unsigned and the decedent did not use an attorney even though she had done so in the past. Again, a competent attorney would have counseled the decedent to sign any document which they wanted to have testamentary effect and to
follow the right procedures for amending a trust. For example, it is prudent to notarize any trust document, whether it be the actual trust, a trust amendment, a trust restatement or a certificate of trust.

Holographic Will

A person should not expect the best results when they haphazardly do anything in life, estate planning is no different.

Estelle Elsa Manwell was a wealthy Californian. According to court documents, she owned real estate in Contra Costa and El Dorado County worth $1,238,848. On March 23, 2011, she executed a holographic will which bequeathed her estate to her 5 living children. For reasons unknown, her will was attested to by 9 witnesses (Author's comment: this is very peculiar, (a) a holographic will need not be witnessed and (b) even a type-written only requires 2 witnesses).  In terms of the real property, the will stated "I do not want any of my property sold outside of my family for a minimum of 20 years." Finally, the will did not nominate an executor nor mention bond. On March 25, 2011, Ms. Manwell passed away. 

There are notable problems with this situation. 

First, the most obvious defect is that there is no trust involved and there decedent owned real estate. Consequently, Manwell's estate must be probated and typically the only "winner" during probate is the attorney because they are handsomely paid. For an estate worth at least a $1M, the attorney can collect a statutory fee of $23,000. Meanwhile, the beneficiaries have to endure a costly and lengthy procedure, namely probate. 

Second, the will did not mention who would have priority to be administrator. Since the children all have equal priority, there existed the potential for conflict because the administrator can be compensated the same amount as the attorney. Consequently, court filings reveal that the children did in fact engage in adversarial proceedings to determine who would be administrator of their mother's estate.

Third, the will called for a lengthy restraint on the alienation of the estate's real property. In other words, the homes could not be sold for a long period of time after the decedent's death. I commonly advise clients to not insert such a clause in their trust because managing property is very expensive. The annual upkeep of a property, e.g. maintenance, property taxes, utilities, etc., is easily thousands of dollars. By essentially hand-cuffing the beneficiaries to the property, they deprive them of liquidity because they are not allowed to sell. I think clients like to keep "the farm in the family" because of the sentimental feelings attached to the property. This is an understandable feeling. Years of familial memories are deeply inter-twined with the property: birthdays, parties, holidays, family meals, etc. Still, the children do not automatically hold firm these same feelings. Hence, I like the notion of providing the children the option to keep or sell the residence. Thereby, the trust would omit a clause about keeping the real estate in the home.

Clearly Ms. Manwell knew that her demise was shortly coming, her will was written only 2 days prior to her death. It is logical to then assume that Ms. Manwell was trying to make the best of her situation. The problem is that sometimes it is too late to fully address all the issues. Despite her will, Ms. Manwell's estate is currently being litigated in probate court and her passing was over 2 years ago. Thus, it is doubtful that Ms. Manwell would be pleased with what that has ensued following her passing. The probate matter is replete with various motions, many of a bizarre nature, and does not appear to be resolved anytime in the foreseeable future.  

Writing a Will

Writing a will is not an overly cumbersome process. The following are some provisions that all wills should contain. Of note, the term for a person who writes a will is "testator." A person who dies with a will dies "testate" whereas a person who dies without a will dies "intestate." 

Your full name and any nicknames you go by 

Clearly it would be difficult to administer a will if the testator was anonymous. Moreover, it is important to include any nicknames you might commonly go by. For example, past clients have routinely gone by their nicknames. Even their bank accounts or driver's license had their nicknames on the account (don't ask how they did this).

The point is to be able to ascertain who in fact wrote the will. 

Place of residence 

The common practice is to list the county of residence, rather than the city of residence, and the state of residence. There is no legal requirement to do so but it is good practice. If you do not know what county you reside in, well, just Google the city you live in and Wikipedia can tell you.

California law says that a will needs to be probate in the county of residence of the decedent. Hence including the county of residence would prove helpful for the executor. Prob C § 705. 

Name of spouse and/or children 

California is a community property state. Each spouse has a 50% community property interest in the entire marital estate. By omitting a spouse in their will, the testator runs the risk that the omitted spouse can claim an intestate share of the testator's estate despite their omission. Prob C §§100-101.  There are exceptions to this rule though. Prob C §21611.

Similarly, if a testator fails to mention his or her children, such omitted children can claim a share of the testator's estate, just like a spouse, despite their omission. Prob C § 21620. Although, again, there are exceptions to this general rule. Prob C § 21621. 

A No-Will Contract 

Yes, a person can write a contract which specifies how they will write their will. Prob C § 21700. I have never personally seen a will contract but have read about them. Regardless, it is good practice to include a no-will contract clause to erase any doubt. 

List of bequests

People read wills because they want to see what they will inherit. Obviously then, it is important to clearly delineate what item goes to which person. For example, a testator can write "my ATT stock to my cousin Bob" suffices.

It is not necessary to be overly verbose or complicated when making bequests. Just pick an item and list a person. 

Name an Executor 

The executor is a person nominated in a will to be appointed by the court to administer the estate at the testator's death.The executor can be virtually anyone, a relative, a family friend, a neighbor or a corporation. 

Just don't pick the crazy neighbor who refuses to mow his lawn, the relative who has filed bankruptcy multiple times or the friend who likes to buy products he sees while watching infomercials at night. 

Testator's signature 

The testator has a few options as to who can sign the will. (1) The testator can sign the will,  (2) a person  in the testator's presence by the testator's direction, or (3)a court-appointed conservator of the testator can sign as well. Prob C § 6110.

The norm is to have the testator sign. 

Attestation Clauses 

California law requires that 2 witnesses sign a formal will. Prob C § 6110. However, a holographic will does not require any witnesses to sign. Prob C § 6111. Still, holographic wills are ripe for fraud and undue influence. Hence, the writing of a holographic will is often discouraged.

Trust and Probate Litigation

A trust or will, like any legal document, is subject to disputes among interested parties for an assortment of reasons. The following are some common reasons why parties might litigate the contents of a trust or will or its administration. 

1. Interpretation 

Even though the person, or their attorney, writing the will or trust knows, or at least should know, what they are writing it does not necessarily mean that a third-party understands the document. The following example is case which required judicial resolution due to an obvious ambiguity.

On May 2, 1957 Coral Williams of Los Gatos, California wrote a holographic will with the following clause:

"To The University of Southern California known as The U.C.L.A. My entire Estate for Educational purposes.” Estate of Black (1962) 211 Cal.App.2d 75. 

Indisputably, the University of Southern California is known by the acronym “U.S.C.” whereas the acronym “U.C.L.A.” stands for the University of California, Los Angeles. Naturally, litigation ensued because each school believed that it was the rightful beneficiary to Ms. Williams’ estate as directed by her will. 

2. Undue influence 

When somebody writes a will or trust that does not comport with their personality, habits or lifestyle, the common refrain is that the will or trust was the result of undue influence. The following is an example of such. 

James Gunderson, an erstwhile California attorney, routinely wrote wills and trusts which were clearly the result of undue influence. Gunderson would draft wills in which he would name himself as the exclusive or primary beneficiary at the exclusion of the decedent’s heirs. He wrote trusts in which he named himself trustee of large trusts. In turn, while serving as trustee of these trusts, he would hire his own law firm to handle legal services for the trust, classic double-dipping. As trustee, he would invest large sums of money in business entities in which he had an ownership or managerial interest. Naturally, Mr. Gunderson’s outrageous conduct ultimately led to his resignation from the State Bar of California, with subsequent disbarment all but certain should he not have resigned, and also a new law.  

The law, which is still valid, basically disqualifies certain individuals from receiving a bequest from a will or trust, if they assisted in the preparation of it, unless there was consultation and approval by an independent outside attorney. Prob C §§21350-21356.

A rule of thumb for undue influence is that if a will or trust looks suspicious, there is probably a valid reason behind that suspicion. Every client I have had has left their estate to their spouse or their kids, a charity or some logical beneficiary. So if a person suggests that they want to write a will and name some random person in a distant place as the sole beneficiary, you probably have undue influence on your hands. 

3. Breach of a fiduciary duty 

Breach of a fiduciary duty is a common reason why individuals litigate in the trust and will context. A fiduciary duty is basically the legal duty on an individual, when acting on behalf of another, to serve the best interests of individual being assisted. If an individual breaches a fiduciary duty they owed to somebody, there can be serious legal liability.

In terms of a trust, the trustee of a trust owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. This fiduciary duty is manifested by requiring the trustee to be loyal to the beneficiary’s interest rather than themselves, act prudent, disclose material facts to the beneficiary, keep the beneficiary informed of important matters, etc. Each of these aforementioned duties imposes separate responsibilities on the trustee. Thus, even though a trustee may comply with certain duties this does not excuse them from complying with all their duties. This previous post details cases in which the trustee did not comply with their fiduciary duties. 

Holographic Wills

1. What is a holographic will? 

A holographic will is a will written, as least to the material provisions, in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. 

2. Does California recognize holographic wills? 

Yes, California recognizes holographic wills. Prob C § 6111. 

3. Does a holographic will require witnesses or a date or both? 

A holographic will actually requires neither a date nor attestation by witnesses. Granted, it would be foolish to not date the will because if the holographic will is not dated and an inconsistent will exists, the probate court will consider the holographic will to be invalid invalid to the extent of the inconsistency unless it is shown that the holographic will was executed after the other will. Prob C §6111(b)(1). 

4. Does anybody write a holographic will? 

Yes, some people still write holographic wills, although this scant amount decreases over time because of the ubiquity of word processing software. I know of very few people who do not own a computer. 

5. Are holographic wills still relevant? 

Yes, an appellate court decision involving the validity of a holographic will of a Santa Clara County resident was rendered only a few years ago. Estate of Williams (2007) 155 CA4th 197. 

6. Are holographic wills ripe for fraud? 

Yes, as is the case for estate planning instrument, holographic wills are ripe for fraud but even more so on the account that no witnesses are present and no date is required. Even though a trust does not require witnesses, it is customary to have the settlor’s signatures notarized. Conversely, in the case of a holographic, neither law nor custom compels a testator to have the will be attested to by a third party. Thus, it is easy to try to pass off a holographic will as authentic when in fact it is a fake. 

7. What other problems are associated with holographic wills? 

As demonstrated by Estate of Williams, a seemingly half-baked testamentary document was admitted into probate because the testator had shown the requisite testamentary intent to write a will. Estate of Williams (2007) 155 CA4th 197. For example, the words "Last Will, Etc. or What? Of Homer Eugene Williams" appeared at the top of the document. The document was never signed by the testator as the top of the document was the only place where the testator’s name was found. Finally, the document only disposed of a portion of the testator’s estate.

The lesson from Estate of Williams is that a document which might shows some testamentary intent could be deemed a holographic will even though the testator might have intended it to be a rough draft. Since a holographic will can be completed in a few sentences, it is not very difficult to draft a holographic will. 

8. How long does a holographic will need to be? 

According to California case law, not especially long. In a famous California Supreme Court case (I read this case during law school) the following was the complete version of the testator’s valid holographic will. Estate of Russell (1968) 69 C2d 200.

Front side of small card:   "Turn the card
                                         March 18-1957
                                         I leave everything
                                         I own Real &
                                         Personal to Chester
                                         H. Quinn & Roxy Russell
                                         Thelma L. Russell"

Back side of small card:    My ($10.) Ten dollar gold
                                        Piece & diamonds I leave
                                        to Georgia Nan Russell.
                                        Alverata, Geogia”

The main reason for the case’s relevance is because “Roxy Russell” was the testator’s dog and outright gifts to an animal are void. Estate of Russell (1968) 69 C2d 200. If an animal owner wishes to leave property to their pet, they may do so through a pet trust. Prob C § 15212.