NO. 93-46 

IN THC SUFREbE COURT OF THE STATE OF YONTANA 

1983 

ILJ TEE 3iATTER OF TEE ESTATE OF 

AUGUST UiJRUH, Deceased. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Dawson, The Honorable 

L. C. Gulbrandson, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

William B. Sherman, Conrad, Montana 

For Respondent: 

@&+mm!i ;&.&n- Glendive, P40ntana 

'LC% { 5; mcntcn/p~, 

Submitted on Briefs: Xay 26, 1983 

Decided: June 30, 1983 

~iled: JUN 3 0 1983 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

This appeal comes from the District Court of the Seventh 

Judicial District, County of Dawson. We are asked to review an 

order denying probate of certain papers alleged to constitute a 

holographic will. 

August Unruh died in February 1981. After his death, his 

deceased wife's brother, Raymond Johnson, found an envelope among 

his personal belongings. The envelope was sealed and contained 

four pieces of paper. On the outside of the envelope, these 

words were written; "names and addresses of those to be named in 

my - will." Under these words the signature of August Unruh 

appears. On each of the four pieces of paper, various names and 

addresses are listed. It is apparent that there are two lists; 

one list containing names and addresses of Mr. Unruh's side of 

the family, and the other containing names and addresses of his 

wife's side of the family. 

On August 9, 1982, Raymond Johnson filed an amended application for formal probate of will and appointment of personal 

representative. In the application, Mr. Johnson stated that he 

had been unable to locate a formally executed will and therefore 

he requested the court to enter an order allowing probate of the 

envelope and the accompanying four pieces of paper. A hearing 

was held after which the court entered its order denying the 

application. We affirm. 

Appellant contends that the writings met the statutory 

requirements of a holographic will, and any question concerning 

Mr. Unruh's intent could be proved by oral evidence. A 

holographic will is one that fails to meet the formal requirements of section 72-2-302, MCA. A writing "is valid as a 

holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and 

the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator." 

Section 72-2-303, MCA. The District Court concluded that there 

were simply no testamentary provisions. We agree. The papers 
are only lists of various individuals. A will is an "instrument 

by which a person makes a disposition of his property, . . . a 

legal declaration of a man's intention, which he wills to be performed after his death. . ." Ballentines Law Dictionary, 1371 

(3rd Ed. 1969). Here there is no disposition of property. 

Appellant also argues that testimony from people who knew Mr. 

Unruh should have been admitted to show that he intended all 

those persons listed to share equally. However, a valid will 

must exist before it can be construed or interpreted. In Re 

Estate of Gudmunsen (1976), 169 Mont. 53, 545 P.2d 146. The 

envelope and the four papers do not constitute a valid will. 

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. 

We concur: 

Ph-4 4qpcAdlccQJJ 

Chief ~ustice"