Opinion ID: 1541581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Self-Executing Affidavit

Text: Pursuant to the Rhode Island General Laws, any person of sane mind and eighteen (18) years or older in age, may devise, bequeath, or dispose of, by his or her will, executed in the manner required by [statute], all real estate and all personal estate   . G.L.1956 § 33-5-2. Importantly, for a will to be admitted to probate, the will must meet the specific requirements set forth in the General Laws. [5] Section 33-5-5 sets forth the criteria governing the validity of a will in Rhode Island. It provides in pertinent part as follows: No will shall be valid    unless it shall be in writing and signed by the testator, or by some other person for him or her in his or her presence and by his or her express direction; and this signature shall be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two (2) or more witnesses present at the same time, and the witnesses shall attest and shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary, and no other publication shall be necessary. Id. Therefore, a valid will in Rhode Island must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses; those witnesses, in turn, must sign the will in the presence of each other. General Laws 1956 § 33-7-26 authorizes a particular procedure for proving a purported will or codicil  which procedure is at issue in the instant case. That statute allows for the use of oral testimony or the submission of an affidavit to prove the validity of a will and therefore justify its admission to probate. Section 33-7-26 provides in pertinent part: In the absence of objection by anyone interested in the estate of a deceased person, the probate court may admit to probate a purported will or codicil of the deceased person upon oral testimony or affidavit in the following manner: (1) The oral testimony of any one of the subscribing witnesses as to the due execution of any purported will or codicil shall constitute sufficient evidence thereof. (2) An affidavit by the subscribing witnesses or any one or more of them, to any purported will or codicil, executed at any time after execution of the will or codicil, whether before or after the death of the testator, before any officer authorized to administer oaths in or out of this state, stating the facts as the witnesses or witness would be required to testify to in court to prove the will or codicil, shall constitute sufficient evidence of the due execution of the purported will or codicil. The statute goes on to provide an acceptable form for the affidavit described in subparagraph (3) of § 33-7-26  an affidavit that is commonly referred to as a self-executing or self-proving affidavit. Pursuant to the explicit terms of the statute, such an affidavit can serve as proof of the facts that the affiant(s) would be required to testify to in court to prove the will  if, but only if, there is the absence of objection by anyone interested in the estate. Section 33-7-26. In his appeal to this Court, defendant has properly emphasized that such an affidavit serves as proof of the proper execution of a will only in the absence of an objection by an interested party. In view of the fact that defendant did, in fact, object to the probate of the will, he contends that the Superior Court's ruling that the will should be admitted to probate was improper. We agree. Inasmuch as the hearing justice's decision to grant plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment rested on her perception that the self-executing affidavit created a presumptive effect of the will's validity, [6] we observe that our statutory law governing the use of such a document expressly stipulates that its function is to establish the validity of a will in a case in which there is an absence of objection by anyone interested in the estate. Section 33-7-26. This is not such a case. As indicated above, defendant did object to the probate of his father's will; although the self-executing affidavit may offer some evidentiary value to the outcome of this case, we are unable to view it as determinative at the summary judgment stage. Because defendant did indeed object to the probate of the will, it is clear from the express language of § 33-7-26 that the affidavit cannot alone serve as sufficient evidence to admit the will to probate; because the testimony of the signing attorneys raises questions about their presence during the will's execution, we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether or not the will was properly executed. Accordingly, we conclude that this genuine issue of material fact caused the granting of summary judgment by the Superior Court to have been inappropriate.