.webp)
.png)
As we have seen again and again, each case in the common law of Maryland contributes a “layer” to our construction of legal requirements and principles. The estate law in Maryland reflects this state of affairs clearly: in the case of Maryland’s rules pertaining to wills, for example, we have seen how the common law shapes our understanding of the formal requirements to produce a facially valid last will and testament. In the case of Slack v. Truitt (2002), we saw how witness testimony regarding subjective intent is not generally sufficient to overcome the presumption on facial validity. The “attestation” of witnesses is a central requirement for will validity, and the case of Slack v. Truitt conveyed a key layer to this requirement.
The case of In re Steiner (or, In re Estate of Theresa Ruth Steiner, 2022) further clarified Maryland’s attestation requirement. Unlike Slack v. Truitt, the case of In re Steiner focused on a codicil rather than the attestation of the will in its original variation. Let’s go over the details of this case.
Facts of the Case
As of February of 2020, the testator in this case had produced a fully executed, facially valid last will and testament. Then, in June of 2020, the testator decided to alter the February will: specifically, the testator wished to remove a certain beneficiary from inheriting a life estate interest in a piece of real property along with other bequests. These alterations were formally codified in a codicil which was signed by two witnesses, the testator, and was properly notarized. However, the codicil didn’t have an attestation clause.
The beneficiary (who was targeted by the alterations in the codicil) challenged the will when the testator passed away from cancer. The beneficiary contended that an attestation clause was necessary in this case because of the codicil. The beneficiary lost at the trial court level, and the court determined that no such clause was necessary to effect a binding codicil. The case then went before the appellate division for review.
Ruling & Analysis
On review, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s opinion and held that the codicil was indeed valid. Again, this case can be accurately described as adding another layer on top of the layer initially established in Slack v. Truitt: there, the presumption of facial validity was not undermined through later witness testimony regarding subjective intent, and here the court further clarified the attestation requirement by stating that an attestation clause is not mandated by the requirement. So, just by examining these two cases, we can see that Maryland doesn’t mandate attestation clauses to fulfill the attestation requirement for either an original will or a codicil.
As we discussed thoroughly in our full post on Slack v. Truitt, legal battles depend so much on presumptions, and in the case of In re Steiner the presumption favored the testator. The fact that the codicil had been signed by both two witnesses and the testator, and appeared facially valid, was enough to create a “prima facie” case for the testator, and the lack of an attestation clause is simply insufficient to rebut this presumption and place the burden back on the testator’s shoulders. Given the finality of wills, the fact that the decedent is no longer able to testify regarding subjective intent or mental capacity, we don’t have to work too hard to understand the logic of the court’s reasoning in these cases.
Understanding all these subtle nuances of the law regarding attestation is not something the typical Marylander has time or energy to master. This is where the value of a qualified estate planning attorney becomes clear: an attorney has mastered these intricate details and can give you a sense of the enforceability or facial validity of any given document, and this counsel has the potential to confer substantial value, as we have seen.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources
Readers who want to learn more about attestation clauses in Maryland estate law, establishing a revocable living trust, establishing an irrevocable trust, or any other pertinent estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
