Opinion ID: 1824888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: When the Document was Executed.

Text: We have reproduced the will so that the nature of the date on the document may be better understood. From our examination of the instrument (without considering any additional proof), we believe that the trier of fact was entitled to conclude that it was dated January 1, 1935. We recognize that some would interpret the last figure of the date as other than a 5. The record is devoid of any proof which would contradict the finding of the trial court. The only affirmative proof aside from the face of the instrument itself is in support of  the trial court's finding. Thus, Rintha Robinson on cross-examination was asked, Are you certain that that is a five? Would you state that that is clearly set forth? Mrs. Robinson's answer was, Yes, I would. I am pretty well acquainted with his figures and his writing. The lack of clarity in the date is urged upon this court as a basis for reversal. The only test in this regard imposed by the South Dakota statute is that the will must be entirely ... dated. The appellants contend that we should apply a rule of strict construction and reject the instrument on this basis. Perhaps the strongest assertion in support of the appellants' contention is contained in Succession of Curtis (1921), 149 La. 487, 89 So. 629, 630, where the Louisiana court said: It is well settled that, if any part of the date appearing on an instrument purporting to be an olographic testament is doubtful or uncertain, whether as to the day, month, or year, the effect of the uncertainty or doubt about the date is the same as if the instrument were not dated at all; such an instrument is not a valid olographic testament. The reason for strict construction in connection with holographic wills is that the absence of the usual formalities required for a will makes it important that the statutory requirements be scrupulously complied with in order to obviate forgery and outside influences. See Note and Comment, When is a Holographic Will Dated? 5 Montana Law Review (1944), 82, 83. Problems attendant to the dating of holographic wills have been multitudinous. See Anno. 147 A. L. R. 898; 2 Page, Wills (Bowe-Parker rev.), p. 288, sec. 20.6. While strict construction has often been insisted upon, other states have found that substantial compliance with the dating requirement is sufficient. For example, in the case of Estate of Hail (1923), 106 Okla. 124, 235 Pac. 916, a holographic  will dated November 1919 was admitted to probate notwithstanding the absence of the day of the month. The court stated that it regarded the date as written to be a substantial compliance with the statutes. Similarly, in Estate of Irvine (1943), 114 Mont. 577, 139 Pac. (2d) 489, 147 A. L. R. 882, the only date on the instrument was the following: this day of May, 1938. It was held that the date was sufficient under the Montana statute, which required that a holographic will be entirely ... dated. Cf. Estate of Clark (1942), 55 Cal. App. (2d) 85, 87, 129 Pac. (2d) 969, 971. Another case where substantial compliance was held to be sufficient is Estate of Durlewanger (1940), 41 Cal. App. (2d) 750, 107 Pac. (2d) 477. Our research fails to disclose any cases decided by the South Dakota court which expressly rule on the question of the effect of an obscure date on a holographic document. There are two South Dakota cases which might be understood to favor a rule of strict construction in connection with holographic wills, but since they do not relate to the problem of the date on the instrument, we find that the South Dakota court has not resolved this particular issue. See Estate of McNair (1949), 72 S. D. 604, 38 N. W. (2d) 449; Estate of Brandow (1932), 59 S. D. 364, 240 N. W. 323. So far as the dating of the instrument is concerned, we consider that the face of the document, together with the testimony of Rintha Robinson on cross-examination, and the absence of any contrary proof, all support the trial judge's conclusion that the proffered holographic will met the requirements of the South Dakota statute. By the Court. Order affirmed.