Court Opinion

ID: 9570960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:27:51.458549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:58.319556
License: Public Domain

Justice Lacy,
with whom Chief Justice Carrico joins, dissenting.
There is no question that the author of the writing at issue intended it as his will. It is a complete document, disposing of the author’s entire estate and shows the finality of the instrument. The only ingredient needed to transform a writing with these characteristics into a valid will is the name of the author appearing in *562such a manner “as to make it manifest that the name is intended as a signature.” Code § 64.1-49.
We must therefore determine the intent of the author when he wrote his name. The majority gleaned this intent from the authors of dictionaries, rather than from the normal and common understanding more probably used by the author of this writing. Under a plain reading of the document, I can only conclude that the author’s name as it appeared in the document, “I, Garland B. Slate, Route 3-Box 456 Petersburg, Va.” was used to identify himself as the testator in the declarant clause. Similarly, the closing phrase “Given under my hand”, implies that the writer actually wrote the document, a. phrase of particular significance in a holographic will. The fact that the phrase may be defined as “authenticated by signature” without more, does not indicate that a person’s name written in the preceding lines was that authenticating signature.
Furthermore, I am unable to distinguish this case from the Warwick and Ramsey cases cited by the majority. The majority has moved from “the manifest intent of the writer” to “under any construction or circumstances”, as the test under § 64.1-49 for determining the .existence of a signature and, therefore, a valid will. I therefore, must respectfully dissent.