Case Title: Matter of Estate of Dobson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 85-37

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1985-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Estate of Dobson1985 WY 177708 P.2d 422Case Number: 85-37Decided: 10/28/1985IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE A. DOBSON. 

MARY ROSE LORENZO, APPELLANT (PETITIONER), 

v. 

MARTHA HOWARD, JAMES E. DOBSON, AND ROBERT R. DOBSON, APPELLEES (OBJECTORS). 

DAVID CLIFT, TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE A. DOBSON, DECEASED.

Supreme Court of Wyoming
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
ESTATE OF ROSE A. DOBSON. 

MARY ROSE LORENZO, 
APPELLANT (PETITIONER), 

v. 

MARTHA HOWARD, JAMES E. 
DOBSON, AND ROBERT R. DOBSON, APPELLEES (OBJECTORS). 

DAVID CLIFT, TEMPORARY 
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE A. DOBSON, DECEASED.

 
 
Appeal from the District 
Court, CrookCounty, Paul T. Liamos, Jr., 
J.

 
 
Michael A. 
Maycock, of Daly, Maycock, Anderson & Taylor, P.C., Gillette, for appellant.

Richard S. 
Dumbrill, of Jones, Dumbrill & Hansen, Newcastle, for appellees James E. Dobson, Robert 
Dobson and Martha Howard.

Richard J. Macy, 
of Macy & Harper, Sundance, for 
appellee Martha Howard.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and 
ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

BROWN, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     This appeal seeks 
review of the district court's ruling that a holographic will was invalid. 
Appellant Mary Rose Lorenzo, eldest court to admit the decedent's holographic 
will to probate. The decedent's other children by a later marriage, appellees 
Martha Howard, James E. Dobson, and Robert R. Dobson, objected to the admission 
of the holographic will. After a hearing on the matter, the district court ruled 
the holographic will invalid and denied its admission to 
probate.

[¶2.]     Appellant raises the 
following issues:

"I. Did the district 
court, sitting in probate, err in finding that penciled words and marks placed 
on a holographic will by someone other than the decedent, were so placed with 
the knowledge and consent of the decedent, when there was no evidence of that 
fact?

"II. Do immaterial 
alterations on what would otherwise be a valid holographic will, render the will 
of no force and effect?"

[¶3.]     We will 
affirm.

[¶4.]     Rose A. Dobson died on 
October 14, 1984. A few days later appellant, Rose Dobson's eldest daughter, 
found a holographic will in a family bible in Rose Dobson's home. The appellees, 
all children of Rose Dobson by another marriage, contended the will was invalid 
and that Rose Dobson died intestate.

[¶5.]     At the hearing, David 
Clift, vice president and trust officer of the Stockmen's Bank & Trust 
Company in Gillette, 
Wyoming, testified there were 
things written on the contested will in what he recognized as his own 
handwriting. He produced two documents: one, a prospect file for Rose Dobson and 
the other an estate planning analysis containing notes and the value of 
decedent's assets completed by him. Mr. Clift testified he recalled meeting with 
Rose Dobson, but he could not recall the exact conversation between them. He 
recalled writing on her will and that it was his policy as a trust officer not 
to write on a person's will without their consent. Other than David Clift's 
notations, the evidence showed the remainder of the will was in the decedent's 
handwriting.

[¶6.]     As stated earlier, the 
district court concluded the holographic will was invalid and 
found:

"FINDINGS OF 
FACT

"1. That the writing by a 
pen on the Will received into evidence and the signature appearing on thereof is 
that of the above-named decedent.

"2. That the blue lines 
on said Will were placed there by the decedent.

"3. That the penciled 
words and marks on said Will were placed there by David Clift with the knowledge 
and at least the implied consent of the decedent.

"4. That the decedent 
went to David Clift to seek assistance in disposing of her 
estate.

"CONCLUSIONS OF 
LAW

"1. That the importance 
of changes made to a holographic Will by one other than the testator do not bear 
upon the validity of the Will.

"2. That the legislature 
of the State of Wyoming means precisely what it said when it 
enacted the statute requiring that a holographic Will be entirely in the 
handwriting of the testator.

"3. That the changes made 
by David Clift to the purported Will of the decedent completely vitiated it as a 
holographic Will.

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, 
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Will of Rose A. Dobson is invalid and of no force 
or effect, and is hereby denied admission to probate."

[¶7.]     We will consider both 
of appellant's issues together. Appellant asks whether the trial court erred by 
invalidating the holographic will due to the notations made on the will by David 
Clift.

[¶8.]     The right to make a 
will is statutory, subject to legislative control. 1 Bowe-Parker: Page on Wills 
§ 3.1, pp. 62-63 (1960); and In re 
Thornton's Estate, 21 Wyo. 421, 133 P. 134 
(1913). Section 2-6-113, W.S. 1977 (June 1980 Replacement) 
provides:

"A will which does not 
comply with W.S. 1-6-112 is valid as an holographic will, whether or not 
witnessed, if it is entirely in the handwriting of the testator and signed by 
the hand of the testator himself."1

[¶9.]     As the above statute 
indicates, a holographic will, to be valid, must be entirely in the handwriting of the 
testator. Here, there were several notations made on the will. The phrases, 
"including all mineral and oil rights," and "excluding all mineral and oil 
rights" were penciled in the will. Additionally, the phrase "including mineral 
rights" was penciled in and then crossed out. Certain numbers and parentheses 
were also added. David Clift admitted the penciled notations were his 
handwriting. Appellant claims there was no evidence that the notations made on 
the will by another person were made with Rose Dobson's consent. We cannot 
agree. David Clift testified:

"MR. MACY: 
(Recross-Examination)

"Q But you do know that 
is your writing on the Will that has been testified to?

"A 
Yes.

"Q And that was done with 
the consent of Mrs. Dobson?

"A I assume that to be 
correct, yes.

"Q Well, you wouldn't 
have made it over objection, would you have? 

"A 
No.

"Q You were advising her, 
weren't you?

"A 
Yes.

"Q And she was taking 
your advice, was she not?

"A 
Yes."

[¶10.]  We conclude there was evidence upon which 
the trial court could conclude the notations made by a third party were made 
with the knowledge and consent of the decedent.

[¶11.]  In sum, the will was not entirely in the 
handwriting of the deceased as required by § 2-6-113. One authority has 
stated:

"An interlineation in a 
holographic will re-executes and republishes the will, and the instrument is 
entitled to probate as altered, provided the change is made by the testator in 
his own handwriting with the intent to incorporate the additional words or 
figures in the will. * * *

"The alteration of a 
holographic will or the incorporation of words therein by a person other than 
the testator, even though with the latter's knowledge or consent or at his 
direction, vitiates the will, notwithstanding a statutory provision that no 
address, date, or other matter not incorporated in the handwriting of the 
decedent shall be considered as any part of the will. * * *" 79 Am.Jur.2d Wills 
§§ 721, 722, p. 798 (1975).

[¶12.]  A similar situation arose in the case of 
In re Towle's Estate, 14 Cal. 2d 261, 
93 P.2d 555, 124 A.L.R. 624 (1939), in which a trust officer made cancellations 
and additions at the request of the testatrix. The holographic will was held 
invalid as a result of such changes and the court averred:

"The refusal of the 
courts in the past to permit any deviation from the clear, plain requirements of 
the code section governing the due execution of holographic wills was based upon 
the theory that the rigid requirement that such wills be entirely in the 
handwriting of the testator was enacted by the legislature to afford protection 
from the danger of forgery of such a will, not protected, as is a formal will, 
by the safeguard of the requirement of due attestation by competent witnesses. 
[Citation.] In other words, the fact that a document is entirely in the 
handwriting of a testator offers an adequate guaranty of its genuineness. This 
same reasoning applies, and the same danger of forgery exists, we think, with 
reference to cancellations, interlineations, and alterations made in an 
holographic will, and requires the changes, alterations, and interlineations to 
be made wholly in the handwriting of the testator. Such rigid and strict 
requirement is neither, in our opinion, unreasonable nor unwise." Id. 93 P.2d  at 
561-562.

[¶13.]  The same reasoning is applicable here. To 
give credence to a holographic will, the law requires that it be entirely in the 
handwriting of the testator. This clothes the document with an indicia of 
authenticity.

[¶14.]  Appellant claims the alterations made 
were immaterial and should not render the will invalid. Appellant goes on to 
postulate that anyone who is dissatisfied with the "contents of a holographic 
will could invalidate the will by simply writing anything on the face 
thereof."

[¶15.]  This is not a case in which the testatrix 
made the changes herself, as is her right. Seeley v. Estate of Seeley, Wyo., 627 P.2d 1357 (1981); and Stanley v. Henderson, 139 Tex. 160, 162 S.W.2d 95 (1942).2 Nor is it a case where some unknown 
person made unauthorized changes without the knowledge or consent of the 
testatrix. Neither of the above scenarios, in and of themselves, would 
necessarily invalidate the will. We agree with the court in the Towles case, supra, 93 P.2d  at 559-560, 
wherein it said:

"* * * It is conceded by 
appellants, as indeed it must be, since it is self-apparent, that cancellations, 
interlineations and additions in the handwriting of a person other than Helen M. 
Towle, appear upon the face of the document. It is true that if someone, unknown to the 
testatrix and without her authority, had marked up decedent's will, said 
instrument, as originally executed by the testatrix and with said alterations 
deleted, would be entitled to probate. Musgrove v. Holt, 153 Ark. 355, 240 S.W. 1068. 
But no claim is made in the instant case that these marks, interlineations and 
additions were placed on said instrument without the knowledge and consent of 
the testatrix. Of course, no such claim could be successfully made, since the 
evidence is undisputed that these marks, interlineations and changes were made 
by Mr. Seftenberg in the presence of the testatrix and with her knowledge and 
consent, and that whatever cancellations and interlineations were made which 
changed the terms and provisions of the original holographic will, expressed the 
testatrix's own ideas and wishes. In view of these uncontradicted facts, we are 
convinced that no amount of argument can offer escape from the simple, basic 
fact that the document presented for probate was not entirely written, dated and 
signed by the hand of the testatrix herself. The instrument, therefore, is not 
entitled to probate." (Emphasis added.)

[¶16.]  It is not readily apparent whether or not 
the notations made by David Clift changed the disposition scheme of the will in 
a material way. The determination of whether or not the notations materially 
changed the disposition scheme would require construction of the will, which we 
do not feel we should undertake given the circumstances of this 
case.

[¶17.]  In the case at bar, we think the trial 
court was correct in denying admission of the holographic will into probate 
since it was not entirely in the handwriting of the decedent. We have previously 
held that a valid holographic will must be entirely in the testator's 
handwriting. See Matter of Estate of 
Reed, Wyo., 672 P.2d 829 (1983), wherein we held a tape recording made by 
the decedent could not be admitted to probate as a valid holographic will since 
it was not in the decedent's handwriting.

[¶18.]  No other prejudicial error has been found 
in any of appellant's issues, and we conclude the judgment of the district court 
should be affirmed.

[¶19.]  Affirmed.

1 The Wyoming statute in effect 
at the time decedent prepared the purported will provided:

"An olographic or 
holographic will is herein defined as one that is entirely written and signed by 
the hand of the testator himself; and is not required to be in any particular 
form and may be made in or out of this state and need not be witnessed." Section 
2-55, W.S. 1957.

For purposes of 
this appeal, it matters not which statute is used.

2 In the Seeley case we held a testator effected 
a valid partial revocation of a holographic will by cutting out a part of the 
will and carefully taping the remaining portions of the will back together. The 
validity of the holographic will, as modified, was nevertheless 
upheld.

ROONEY, Justice, 
concurring.

[¶20.]  I concur with that said in the majority 
opinion. I agree that marks or charges on a holographic will other than in the 
testator's handwriting invalidates it only if made with the knowledge or consent 
of the testator. Whether or not the knowledge and consent existed is a question 
of fact. In this case, the fact finder found such to have existed, and there was 
evidence to support the findings. They were not clearly erroneous or contrary to 
the great weight of the evidence. Herman 
v. Speed King Manufacturing Company, Wyo., 
675 P.2d 1271 (1984); Scherling v. 
Kilgore, Wyo., 
599 P.2d 1352 (1979).