Wife argues that the district court erred in finding that the will was not properly executed. That there is no available copy of the original will that comports with the statute is undisputed. The proponent of a lost or destroyed will has the burden of establishing that the will was unrevoked at the time of death . This burden is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. Wife argues determining the identity of the subscribing witnesses is unnecessary in deciding the proper execution of a will.
Wife further contends that the district court ignored evidence that supported execution.
While there may have been some evidence supporting execution of the will, the fact remains that the statute requires a signed and witnessed will. There was no such will provided, and not only was there no testimony or affidavits of subscribing witnesses, but also there was no evidence concerning who these witnesses were. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err by finding that the will was not duly executed.