Opinion ID: 1171782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attestation.

Text: It is essential to the validity of a will that it be attested to by two or more competent witnesses, subscribing their names to the will in the presence of the testator   . [1] The appellant, Faye Kraft, contends that this requirement was not met. She argues that there is no proof that Bennett, one of the persons whose name appears as a witness, actually attested the will; or that if attestation by Bennett and the other witness, Shannon, was established, there is no proof that it was done in the testator's presence and at his request. Bennett was a long time friend of the testator and spent a great deal of time with him at the hospital on the day of his death. He testified that the will was given to him to take to Kraft; that he promptly went into Kraft's room and read it to him; that later he asked Shannon, who was on the hospital floor, to act as a witness; that he told Kraft that Shannon (who was in the room at the time) was there to witness the signing of the will, whereupon Kraft acknowledged this by saying Yes, I know; and that Kraft then signed the will. [2] Bennett did not testify that it was his signature that appeared following the attestation clause in the will. But at the hearing both parties and the court apparently took it for granted that there was no dispute on this point. At one point the judge, in asking Bennett a question, referred to him as one of the subscribing witnesses to this Will. When Shannon was testifying under cross-examination by appellant's counsel, he was asked Who signed it [the will] first you or Mr. Bennett?, and he answered I did. Bennett's narrative of the series of events leading up to the execution of the will makes it highly unlikely that the signature J.G. Bennett, appearing in the attestation clause, was that of some other person. At no time during the proceedings in the court below did counsel for appellant even suggest doubt as to the genuineness of this signature. In these circumstances, we hold that attestation of the will by Bennett was judicially admitted by appellant by reason of her failure to raise this as an issue, either in her contesting petition or in her cross-examination of Bennett at the hearing below. Appellant argues that even if Bennett did sign the document, it was not proved that he did this while in the hospital room  the only place where he could have been in the presence of the testator as required by law. [3] It is true there was no direct testimony on this point. But appellant's admission that Bennett did sign as a witness in the testator's presence is implicit in her failure to deny that fact, and in her counsel's question to Shannon where he inquired as to who had signed the document first, Shannon or Bennett. [4] At the time the will was executed Kraft was extremely ill and dying from acute alcoholism and cancer. He was under sedation and had been given about two ounces of whiskey. In these circumstances appellant asserts that he could not have known what he was doing, and therefore the attestation of the will could not have taken place in his presence. [5] There was evidence enough to support a finding that Kraft was aware of the fact he was executing his will and that Bennett and Shannon were attesting such execution. Bennett testified that after he read the will to Kraft, the latter just sort of nodded his head and wanted to proceed to sign it; that when he told Kraft that Shannon was there to sign the will, Kraft said Yes, I know; that after Kraft had spent about five minutes in placing an illegible signature on the document and had returned it to Bennett, he asked Bennett to give the will back to him, stating I forgot to cross the `t'; and that he was able to speak coherently and knew what he was doing. Shannon testified that when he told Kraft he was there to witness the signing of the will, Kraft acknowledged this by nodding his head; that Kraft knew him and spoke to him; and that Kraft appeared to know what he was doing. There is nothing in the record indicating that the testimony of these witnesses was unworthy of belief. The court was justified in accepting what they said as being the truth, and in finding that the will had been attested to by them in the presence of the testator in accordance with the statutory requirement. The contention is also made that the attestation was deficient because not done at Kraft's request. The answer to this is that a request was unnecessary, since the statute requires only that the witnesses subscribe their names in the testator's presence. [6] That requirement was met, since Bennett and Shannon were in the same room with Kraft when the will was executed by him and witnessed by them, and Kraft knew what he was doing and knew that they were there to act as witnesses to the execution of the will. Nothing more was required. [7]