vacated and to admit the 2006 will into probate. The district court 

vacated its prior order and revoked the March 12 letter and March 16 will 

from probate, and the court reserved judgment on admitting the 2006 will 

into probate.' Zuritsky and Winigrad appealed. 

Zuritsky and Winigrad argue that the March 12 letter was a 

holographic will incorporating the March 16 will by reference and that, 

together, they effectively revoked the 2006 will and directed that Zuritsky 

and Winigrad receive all of Feldman's property. We review de novo 

whether a document is a valid will and the interpretation of a will or a 

statute. In re Estate of Melton, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 272 P.3d 668, 673 

(2012). 

"A holographic will is a will in which the signature, date and 

material provisions are written by the hand of the testator, whether or not 

it is witnessed or notarized." NRS 133.090(1). In this case, it is not 

disputed that the signature, date and provisions of the March 12 letter 

were handwritten by Feldman. The parties dispute, however, whether the 

language Feldman used in the letter is sufficient to• demonstrate 

Feldman's testamentary intent, and the district court determined that it 

was not sufficient. In that regard, the letter indicates that Feldman was 

enclosing copies of his will, that he wished Zuritsky and Winigrad to 

receive the equity in his home, and that Zuritsky and Winigrad were the 

'As a consequence, the admission of the 2006 will into probate is not 

before this court, and we make no comments and reach no legal 

conclusions regarding the merits of admitting the 2006 will into probate or 

what effect the 2012 documents may have on the 2006 will, if any. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1907A 0.)tapn 
only family he had left. We hold that these material provisions are 

sufficient indicia of testamentary intent for the March 12 letter to qualify 

as a holographic will. See In re Estate of Melton, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 272 

P.3d at 674 (construing a letter as a will); see also In re Van Voast's Estate, 

266 P.2d 377, 379 (Mont. 1953) (stating that a letter may be construed as 

a will where the letter demonstrates the testator's "intention to create a 

revocable disposition of his property" that will "take effect only upon his 

death" (internal quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we reverse the portion 

of the district court's order revoking the March 12 letter from probate. 

Regarding the March 16 will, the probate commissioner and 

the district court found that the March 16 will was not a valid will because 

it contained the signature of only one witness, in violation of NRS 133.040. 

To the extent that the March 16 will contains only one signature, we 

affirm the district court's order that the March 16 will does not comply 

with the strict formalities of NRS 133.040. However, the probate 

commissioner and the district court did not consider whether some other 

means might be used to admit the March 16 will, including whether the 

March 16 will might be incorporated by reference into the March 12 letter. 

See In re Foster's Estate, 82 Nev, 97, 101-02, 411 P.2d 482, 484-85 (1966); 

see also Restatement (Third) of Property (Wills and Other Donative 

Transfers) §§ 3.3 (defining harmless error), 3.6 (defining incorporation by 

reference) (1999). Extrinsic evidence is admissible when making these 

inquiries. 2 See Restatement §§ 3.3, 3.6. We decline to reach these issues 

2For example, the probate commissioner and the district court made 

no findings concerning whether the date on the March 12 letter was a 

continued on next page... 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e 
J. 

and remand this matter to the district court for it to consider these factual 

matters. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN 

PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the 

district court for further proceedings. 

Saitta 

Gibboris Pickering 

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge 

Gordon Silver/Las Vegas 

Gordon Silver/Reno 

Johnson & Johnson 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

...continued 

mistake in light of, among other things, the March 16 will and Winigrad's 

affidavit stating that both documents were received in the same envelope. 

While we highlight this question as one of the factual issues that remains, 

we make no findings or conclusions that the date actually was a mistake; 

this is for the fact finder to consider in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4 

(0) 1947A cregg#P