Opinion ID: 852991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Self-Proving

Text: Conrad argues that the will is not self-proving. In the order originally admitting the will to probate, the trial court concluded that the will is self-proving. In the hearing held on Conrad's will contest, the trial court, after listening to testimony of the witnesses, again concluded that the will is valid. Because that conclusion was in a general judgment, we affirm it if the evidence supports the facts necessary to support the conclusion of law. As a result, whether Dellinger's will was self-proving is a moot issue because it was independently proved at trial. However, because amici curiae suggest the importance of resolving this issue, we address it. We hold that Dellinger's will was properly made self-proving under subsection (d) of the statute, quoted above. A will is self-proving under this section because, by signing this clause and claiming that all of the above facts are true, the testator and witnesses assert that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will were proper. This allows the will to be admitted to probate without the testimony of any of the subscribing witnesses. By signing the fifth page bearing the quoted language, the witnesses asserted all of the facts required by statute. Accordingly, the will is self-proving. Conrad argues that inaccuracies in this clause invalidate it as a self-proving clause. She first argues that the statement that the witnesses signed the will is erroneous. This proceeds from the assumption that the signatures to page five were not attesting witnesses and/or the fifth page is not part of the will. We disagree for the same reason we concluded that the witnesses' attestation was valid: the witnesses did sign the self-proving page, which was a part of the will. Conrad also argues that the statement in the self-proving clause that the testator signed the will is incorrect because Mr. Dellinger did not actually sign the will, but had his attorney do so. We think a recitation that the testator signed is, under these circumstances, fairly taken as embodying a signature by another at the direction and in the presence of the testator as subsection (a)(1)(C) permits. To the extent it is an inconsistency, like that in the attestation clause at issue in Estate of Parlock, this inconsistency does not invalidate the self-proving clause because it does not involve a statutory element of self-proof. The statute requires only that the clause indicate certain facts for a will to be self-proving and does not require any specific language to indicate these facts. The clause properly met the statutory requirements by asserting all of the facts required by statute to show that the execution of the will was proper. Therefore, the clause is effective and the will is self-proving.