Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; June 17, 1987; Utah; State Appellate Court
Darrell Thomas Cossey, the foster son of the deceased Ronald Fitzgerald, appeals a Third District Court order that appointed Fitzgerald's brother, Kenneth L. Fitzgerald, as the estate's personal representative, while implicitly declaring two holographic wills invalid. Ronald Fitzgerald passed away on November 19, 1983, leaving behind two printed wills that named Darrell as the sole beneficiary. Both documents were signed by Ronald and notarized on January 2, 1980. The wills contained slight variations, including different appointments for executrix and one lacking a specific date of execution. Kenneth Fitzgerald sought formal appointment as personal representative and claimed Ronald died intestate. Darrell opposed this and sought to admit the holographic wills and appoint his mother as personal representative, later amending his petition to reflect his own appointment after his mother's death. The trial court ultimately ruled the wills invalid under the Utah Uniform Probate Code. On appeal, Darrell argues that the current code should apply to determine the wills' validity, asserting that Ronald's wills are valid under Section 75-2-503. The court agrees, noting that the relevant statute applies since Ronald died after the code's effective date of July 1, 1977, regardless of the wills' execution dates. The ruling is vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
The trial court made a legal error regarding the validity of a holographic will under Utah law. According to Section 75-2-503 of the Utah Uniform Probate Code, a will can be deemed valid as a holographic will if the signature and material provisions are in the testator's handwriting, regardless of witness presence. In cases where multiple holographic wills exist with conflicting provisions, the most recently executed will prevails. If it is indeterminable which will is last executed, consistent provisions across wills are valid, while inconsistent ones are invalid.
The legal commentary clarifies that the law allows testators to create wills without witnesses, requiring only their signature and material provisions in handwriting, which may include parts of printed forms. Ronald Fitzgerald's handwritten will, dated January 2, 1980, clearly expresses his intent to bequeath his estate to Darrell Thomas Kuhio Cossey, fulfilling all statutory requirements. The trial court's invalidation of this will lacked justification as all necessary elements were present in Fitzgerald's handwriting.
The existence of a second will with two dates creates ambiguity regarding its execution but does not conflict with Fitzgerald's single-dated will, allowing for the consistent provisions to be considered valid. Consequently, the holographic wills should be admitted to probate, leading to the vacation of the trial court's order appointing Kenneth Fitzgerald as personal representative and remanding the case for further proceedings without awarding costs. Judges Billings and Garff concurred with this decision.
