Case Name: Malcolm SHAMOON v. Marian S. TOMBRIDGE, Executrix of the ESTATE of Abraham S. SHAMOON
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1987-02-16
Citations: 291 Ark. 222
Docket Number: 86-148
Parties: Malcolm SHAMOON v. Marian S. TOMBRIDGE, Executrix of the ESTATE of Abraham S. SHAMOON
Judges: Holt, C.J., and Newbern, J., concur.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 291
Pages: 222–224

Head Matter:
Malcolm SHAMOON v. Marian S. TOMBRIDGE, Executrix of the ESTATE of Abraham S. SHAMOON
86-148
723 S.W.2d 827
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered February 16, 1987
Gill, Johnson, Gill & Gill, by: Kenneth Johnson, for appellant.
David F. Gillison, Jr., for appellee.

Opinion:
John I. Purtle, Justice.
The trial court admitted the testator's will to probate. His son, an only child, a minor beneficiary under the will, appeals from that decision on the ground that his father died intestate. We agree with the appellant that the will was erroneously admitted to probate because it does not comply with the Arkansas law.
The will in this case was executed on May 31,1985, while the decedent was in the hospital. He died on June 4, 1985. The signatures of two witnesses were affixed to the will. The decedent made an "X" on the line for his signature which then read "his X mark." Also, a proof of will was executed by the attesting witness and acknowledged by a notary public. The trial court held that the notary public's signature on the proof of will form amounted to a third signature.
The execution of this will is controlled by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 60-403 (Repl. 1971). This statute specifically requires that the testator, if he signs by mark, must have a witness who signs the document attesting to his mark or if the testator so directs someone else may sign his name for him but in such case the witness must state on the will that the testator's name was written at the request of the testator. The statute also requires that two attesting witnesses must sign at the end of the instrument.
We have interpreted this statute to be mandatory in order to validate a non-holographic will. In Green v. Smith, 236 Ark. 829, 368 S.W.2d 280 (1963), we considered a fact situation almost the same as in the present case. In Green the testator signed by an "X." Also, he had two attesting witnesses. "We held sub-section (3) and (5) of this statute to be mandatory in requiring a minimum of three subscribing witnesses to make the will in question valid." Green at p. 831. We reached the same result in Priolo v. Priolo, 237 Ark. 798, 377 S.W.2d 29 (1964). Since the will did not comply with the Arkansas law, it should not have been admitted to probate.
Reversed and remanded.
Holt, C.J., and Newbern, J., concur.