Title: Hampton Roads Seventh-Day Adventist Church v. Stevens
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 070401
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: February 29, 2008

Present:  All the Justices 
 
HAMPTON ROADS SEVENTH-DAY 
ADVENTIST CHURCH 
 
 
      OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.  Record No. 070401 
February 29, 2008 
 
ORA STEVENS, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON 
Louis R. Lerner, Judge 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether a will was subscribed 
by two witnesses as required by Code § 64.1-49. 
The procedural history of this case and the relevant 
facts are simple and are not in dispute.  Cora Lee Watson 
executed a will on March 12, 1996.  After she died, the 
Hampton Roads Seventh-Day Adventist Church, a beneficiary 
identified in the will, requested that the clerk of the 
Circuit Court of the City of Hampton admit the will to probate 
pursuant to Code § 64.1-77.  The clerk entered an order 
denying the request to probate the will because "[t]he 
purported will [was not] properly witnessed; to wit:  where 
signatures of the witnesses should be, the names of the 
witnesses are printed." 
 
Pursuant to Code § 64.1-78, the Church appealed the 
clerk's order to the Circuit Court of the City of Hampton.  
The Church also filed a memorandum of law in the circuit court 
in support of its appeal.  Ora Stevens and Matthew Watson, the 
testatrix' relatives (hereinafter "family members"), opposed 
the request to probate the will.  Matthew Watson was the sole 
residuary beneficiary under the will, but the Church was the 
beneficiary of several specific bequests and legacies under 
the will including the testatrix' home and substantial bank 
accounts.  If the will was valid, these specific bequests 
would reduce the value of the residuary estate to be 
distributed to Matthew Watson, who was also named as the 
personal representative in the will. 
 
The following facts were adduced during an ore tenus 
hearing in the circuit court.  The testatrix signed a non-
holographic document, entitled "Last Will and Testament of 
Cora Lee Watson," which consisted of five pages that were 
numbered one through five and included a self-proving 
affidavit on pages four and five of the will. 
 
On page three of the will, the following paragraph 
appears that includes the testatrix' signature: 
 
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 
hand and seal to this, my Last Will and Testament, 
consisting of five pages, this 12 day of March, 
1996." 
 
 
 
 
 
"Cora L. Watson (Seal)" 
 
 
The will contained designated spaces for witnesses to 
affix their signatures immediately below the above-referenced 
paragraph.  A notary public, who was present when the 
testatrix signed the will, printed the names of the three 
 
2
witnesses in the designated spaces on page three of the will.  
The notary placed the address of each witness on page three of 
the will beside each witness' printed name, and each witness 
affixed his or her initials beside his or her address.  The 
record does not reflect that the witnesses requested or 
directed the notary to print their names on the will. 
 
The following paragraph appears on page 4 of the will: 
 
"Before me, the undersigned authority, on this 
day, personally appeared Cora Lee Watson, Testator, 
Herbert N. Charles, Sr., Patricia A. Charles, and 
Thomas N. Boggess, known to me to be the Testator 
and the witnesses, whose names are signed to the 
attached or foregoing instrument and, all of these 
persons being by me first duly sworn, the Testator 
declared to me and to the witnesses in my presence 
that said instrument is Testator's Last Will and 
Testament and that Testator had willingly signed and 
executed it in the presence of said witnesses as  
Testator's free and voluntary act for the purposes 
therein expressed; that said witnesses stated before 
me that the foregoing Will was executed and 
acknowledged by the Testator as Testator's Last Will 
and Testament in the presence of said witnesses who, 
in Testator's presence and at Testator's request, 
and in the presence of each other, did subscribe 
their names thereto as attesting witnesses on the 
day of the date of said Will, and that the Testator, 
at the time of the execution of said Will, was over 
the age of 18 years and of sound and disposing mind 
and memory." 
 
 
 
 
 
"Cora L. Watson" 
 
 
 
 
 
"Testator" 
 
 
 
 
 
"Herbert N. Charles, Sr." 
 
 
 
 
 
"Witness" 
 
 
 
 
 
"Patricia A. Charles" 
 
 
 
 
 
"Witness" 
 
 
 
 
 
"Thomas N. Boggess" 
 
 
 
 
 
"Witness" 
 
 
3
The testatrix and each witness, Herbert Charles, Patricia 
Charles, and Thomas Boggess, signed their names immediately 
below this paragraph on page four of the will. 
Herbert Charles testified that he recognized the will as 
the Last Will and Testament of Cora Watson and that he was 
present when she placed her signature on the will.  When Mr. 
Charles placed his signature on page four of the will, which 
was also the self-proving affidavit, he did so in the 
testatrix' presence, and he intended to act as a witness when 
she affixed her signature on the will. 
Patricia Charles also testified that she was present when 
the testatrix signed the will.  When Ms. Charles signed her 
name on page four of the will, she did so in the presence of 
the testatrix and the other witnesses, and she intended to act 
as a witness when the testatrix affixed her signature to the 
will.  No attorney was present when the will was executed.  
The record does not reflect any testimony was received from 
the third witness, Thomas Boggess. 
 
The circuit court held that the will was not subscribed 
as required by Code § 64.1-49 and entered an order consistent 
with its opinion.  The Church appeals. 
 
The Church argues that the circuit court erred by failing 
to admit the testatrix' will to probate.  The Church contends 
that the testatrix' will consisted of five pages, that the 
 
4
self-proving affidavit was one of the five pages that 
constituted the will, that two witnesses signed their names 
below the testatrix' name on the self-proving affidavit, and, 
thus, that the witnesses' signatures there constitute a 
subscription that satisfies the requirements of Code § 64.1-
49. 
 
Responding, the family members argue that the Church 
failed to argue in the circuit court that the witnesses 
complied with the requirements of Code § 64.1-49 and, thus, 
cannot assert that contention in this Court.  Continuing, the 
family members assert that the testatrix' will consists of 
three pages and that the requirements of Code § 64.1-49 were 
not satisfied within those pages and, hence, the will was not 
subscribed within the meaning of that statute.  We disagree 
with the family members. 
 
Initially, we reject the family members' contention that 
the Church failed to argue in the circuit court that the will 
was subscribed within the meaning of Code § 64.1-49.  Our 
review of the record reveals that the Church presented this 
issue to the circuit court. 
 
Code § 64.1-49 states in relevant part: 
"No will shall be valid unless it be in writing 
and signed by the testator, or by some other person 
in his presence and by his direction, in such manner 
as to make it manifest that the name is intended as 
a signature; and moreover, unless it be wholly in 
 
5
the handwriting of the testator, the signature shall 
be made or the will acknowledged by him in the 
presence of at least two competent witnesses, 
present at the same time; and such witnesses shall 
subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, 
but no form of attestation shall be necessary.  If 
the will be wholly in the handwriting of the 
testator that fact shall be proved by at least two 
disinterested witnesses." 
 
 
The litigants agree that the will is non-holographic and, 
thus, Code § 64.1-49 requires that the testatrix, Cora Watson, 
sign and acknowledge the will in the presence of at least two 
competent witnesses.  This requirement was satisfied and is 
not an issue in this appeal.  The litigants disagree, however, 
whether the will was subscribed by two witnesses in the 
presence of the testator as also required by Code § 64.1-49. 
 
In Robinson v. Ward, 239 Va. 36, 41-42, 387 S.E.2d 735, 
738 (1990), we discussed the rationale for the subscription 
requirement contained in Code § 64.1-49: 
"The purpose of the statute in requiring 
subscription of a will by competent witnesses in the 
presence of the testator is to prevent fraud, 
deception, mistake, and the substitution of a 
surreptitious document.  Ferguson v. Ferguson, 187 
Va. 581, 591, 47 S.E.2d 346, 352 (1948).  These 
requirements, however, 'are not intended to restrain 
or abridge the power of a testator to dispose of his 
property. They are intended to guard and protect him 
in the exercise of that power.'  French v. Beville, 
191 Va. 842, 848, 62 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1951).  The 
safeguards of the statute 'are not designed to make 
the execution of wills a mere trap and pitfall, and 
their probate a mere game.'  Bell v. Timmins, 190 
Va. 648, 657, 58 S.E.2d 55, 59 (1950)." 
 
 
6
Accord Draper v. Pauley, 253 Va. 78, 80, 480 S.E.2d 495, 496 
(1997).  Additionally, the witnesses' subscription establishes 
and proves that the testator's signature is genuine.  
Ferguson, 187 Va. at 591, 47 S.E.2d at 352. 
 
Even though the requirements in Code § 64.1-49 must be 
strictly followed, the statute must not be construed in a 
manner that would "increase the difficulty of the transaction 
to such an extent as to practically destroy" an uninformed 
layperson's right to dispose of property by will.  Savage v. 
Bowen, 103 Va. 540, 546, 49 S.E. 668, 669-70 (1905). 
 
In French v. Beville, we applied former Code § 64-51, 
which is the precursor of, and identical to, Code § 64.1-49.  
We stated:  "The literal meaning of the word 'subscribe,' as 
used in the statute, is 'to write underneath; sub, under; 
scribere, to write.' "  191 Va. at 850, 62 S.E.2d at 886. 
 
Applying these principles to the facts in the present 
case, we conclude that the testatrix' will was subscribed in a 
manner prescribed by Code § 64.1-49.  As we have already 
stated, on page three of the will, she specified that her last 
will and testament consisted of five pages.  The testatrix 
signed her name below the statement that described the number 
of pages contained in her will.  On the next page of her will, 
page number four, the testatrix signed the self-proving 
affidavit, which, in this instance, is a part of her will.  
 
7
Herbert Charles and Patricia Charles placed their signatures 
below the testatrix' signature on that page.  The placement of 
their signatures on page four of the will below the testatrix' 
signature satisfies the statutory requirement of subscription 
contained in Code § 64.1-49.  Additionally, we note there is 
absolutely no evidence of fraud in the record before this 
Court, and the record is clear that the will consisted of five 
pages, including the self-proving affidavit on pages four and 
five. 
 
In view of our holding, we need not consider the 
litigants' other contentions.  Accordingly, we will reverse 
the judgment of the circuit court, and we will remand this 
case to the circuit court for the entry of an order that 
Watson's will was subscribed in the manner prescribed by Code 
§ 64.1-49.* 
                     
* We recognize that Code § 64.1-49.1, which became 
effective July 1, 2007, states in part: 
 
 
"Although a document, or a writing added upon a 
document, was not executed in compliance with 
§ 64.1-49 the document or writing shall be treated 
as if it had been executed in compliance with 
§ 64.1-49 if the proponent of the document or 
writing establishes by clear and convincing evidence 
that the decedent intended the document or writing 
to constitute (i) the decedent's will, (ii) a 
partial or complete revocation of the will, (iii) an 
addition to or an alteration of the will, or (iv) a 
partial or complete revival of his formerly revoked 
will or of a formerly revoked portion of the will." 
 
8
 
9
Reversed and remanded. 
                                                                
We do not, and we need not, consider the effect, if any, 
this statute has upon the legal issues presented in this 
appeal.