.webp)
In our series on estate law, one of the goals is to inform our readers about the importance of complying very carefully with the technical requirements of establishing a will. Clearly, as some of our more recent articles have shown in particular, wills are instruments whose validity depends on the fulfillment of many complex rules and principles. If even a single technical defect be found in a Maryland will, that will can be rendered unenforceable. Whenever Marylanders go to develop a will, therefore, it is imperative that they procure the services of an experienced and well-qualified attorney, because even a slight blemish can quite literally lead to the defeat of the entire document.
Little by little, our readers are seeing the precise kinds of defects which can defeat a Maryland will. Obviously, laypeople cannot be expected to master all these legal subtleties, and that isn’t what our series on estate law is really about. But, the more people understand at least some of these issues at a basic level, the better they will be able to ensure that their instruments are technically sound and stand a good chance of passing scrutiny.
The case of Woodstock College v. Hankey (1917) is another early case which demonstrates another relatively subtle but still vitally significant aspect of estate law here in the State of Maryland.
Let’s review this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
The testator (will creator) in this case attempted to produce a will, although he did not preserve the will document in a typical or relatively secure location within his home at the time of his passing. Among the three witnesses who signed the will, one had predeceased the testator, one testified that the will was essentially valid and that the testator was of “sound mind” (or, had contractual “capacity”), and the other testified that the testator actually lacked mental capacity to produce a valid will.
Initially, because of the testimony about the testator’s supposed lack of capacity, the will was invalidated by the Orphans’ Court. But, this ruling was challenged by one of the potential beneficiaries and the case went before the appellate court.
Ruling & Discussion
Upon review, the appellate division concluded that the initial trial court level (Orphans’ Court) ruling was incorrect, holding that the witness’s later testimony regarding the testator’s supposed incapacity was insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity. Also, the appellate court stated that the validity of the will was not affected negatively at all by its being stored in a non-secure location. Because the will was facially valid, meaning it apparently satisfied all technical requirements governing enforceability, there was a presumption favoring validity; the logic underlying this presumption is that weight must be granted to the will’s superficial fulfillment of requirements because the testator is obviously not able to give direct testimony about the circumstances. The witness’s “updated” information via testimony about the testator’s mental state was just not adequate to overcome this presumption, particularly without any additional corroboratory evidence.
As with our other recent posts in this area, we can see that this case contributes a meaningful layer to the construction of will enforceability in Maryland, as it demonstrates a layer of the presumption favoring facial validity. Familiarity with details such as these is one of the key benefits of a qualified estate planning attorney.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
Readers who want to know more about technical deficiencies which can defeat wills, creating a will from scratch, amending an existing will via codicil, or any other pertinent estate planning topic, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
