Opinion ID: 2453286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantial or Strict Compliance

Text: The Arkansas Probate Code provides that [a]ny person, eighteen (18) years of age or older, competent to be witness generally in this state may act as attesting witness to a will, and that the execution of a will, other than holographic, must be by the signature of the testator and of at least two (2) Witnesses.  Ark.Code Ann. §§ 28-25-102(a) and 103(a) (1987) (emphasis added). In numerous cases, we have held that the first rule of statutory construction is to give the words of the statute their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson, 335 Ark. 63, 977 S.W.2d 212 (1998); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ellison, 334 Ark. 357, 974 S.W.2d 464 (1998). We have also said that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no reason to resort to rules of statutory construction. State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161, 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999); Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Terry, 336 Ark. 310, 985 S.W.2d 711 (1999). In this case, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 28-25-102 and 103 plainly and unambiguously require that a will must be signed by at least two attesting witnesses, who are eighteen (18) years of age or older. Strictly construing this language, the trial court granted the appellees summary judgment. Ms. Norton, however, contends that substantial compliance with these two requirements is acceptable. Ms. Norton is correct in her assertion that we have previously allowed substantial compliance [1] with other statutory requirements for executing a will. For example, we have allowed substantial compliance with the requirements that the testator declare the instrument to be his or her will, and that the decedent must request the attesting witnesses to sign the document. See, e.g., Faith v. Singleton, 286 Ark. 403, 692 S.W.2d 239 (1985); Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 240 Ark. 582, 401 S.W.2d 555 (1966); Hanel v. Springle, 237 Ark. 356, 372 S.W.2d 822 (1963). Likewise, we have permitted substantial compliance with the requirement that the decedent sign at the end of the will. See, e.g., Clark v. National Bank of Commerce, 304 Ark. 352, 802 S.W.2d 452 (1991); Weems v. Smith, 218 Ark. 554, 237 S.W.2d 880 (1951). In contrast, we have required strict compliance with the requirement that there be at least two attesting witnesses. [2] See, e.g., Burns v. Adamson, 313 Ark. 281, 854 S.W.2d 723 (1993); Johnson v. Hinton, 130 Ark. 394, 197 S.W. 706 (1917). As with the number of attesting witnesses, the probate code clearly and unambiguously provides that the attesting witnesses be eighteen (18) years of age or older. Ark.Code Ann. § 28-25-102(a). This unequivocal language leaves no room for judicial interpretation or substantial compliance. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err when it ruled that the August 1, 1996 will was invalid because one of the witnesses was less than eighteen years old at the time she signed it.