Court Opinion

ID: 9845380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:20:41.268514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:05.469471
License: Public Domain

*45CHIEF JUSTICE CARRICO,
with whom JUSTICE STEPHENSON and JUSTICE WHITING join, dissenting.
Code § 64.1-49 provides that a witness to a will “shall subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary.” What the majority does in this case is to dispense not only with form, which the Code section permits, but also with substance, which, I submit, is impermissible.
The substantive element of subscription requires “signing a will with the intention of acting as a witness.” Ferguson v. Ferguson, 187 Va. 581, 591, 45 S.E.2d 346, 351 (1948) (emphasis added). Here, there is (absolutely nothing in the record to support the proposition that when Katherine D. Ward placed her name on the first line of the will in question, she did so with the intention of acting as a witness. Indeed, the record is conclusive of the proposition that the only reason Ms. Ward wrote her name in the will was to identify herself as a beneficiary. I would reverse.