You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In Re Estate of Schumacher

Citations: 253 P.3d 1280; 2011 WL 1419725Docket: 10CA0016

Court: Colorado Court of Appeals; April 14, 2011; Colorado; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal concerning the validity of alterations made to a holographic will executed by the decedent. The original will included shares of stock meant for three beneficiaries, but subsequent cross-outs indicated a desire to exclude two of them, leaving the stock solely to one. The probate court had to determine whether these cross-outs, lacking a new typed will, constituted a valid revocation of those provisions. The court ruled in favor of upholding the crossed-out names as a partial revocation, relying heavily on the testimony of the decedent's attorney, who confirmed the decedent's intent. The court applied a presumption of possession, as the will was found among the decedent's personal items after his death, reinforcing the presumption that he intended to revoke the crossed-out devises. The appellant challenged the court's findings, arguing that the alterations lacked a signature and thus failed to meet statutory requirements for revocation. However, the court found clear and convincing evidence of intent, applying section 15-11-503 to validate the changes despite procedural irregularities. The decision was affirmed, with the court denying sanctions and attorney fees due to unsupported evidence claims. This case highlights the nuanced application of statutory provisions to assess testamentary intent and will modification in probate proceedings.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Section 15-11-503 for Will Modifications

Application: Despite the lack of signature on the cross-outs, the court upheld their validity by applying section 15-11-503, which allows documents to be treated as valid if intent is clearly demonstrated.

Reasoning: Section 15-11-503(1) and (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes allows a document that does not comply with the execution requirements of section 15-11-502 to be treated as valid if clear and convincing evidence shows the decedent intended it to serve as a partial or complete revocation of a will.

Employee Scope of Employment and Presumption of Possession

Application: The court found that the decedent maintained possession of the will through his secretary, who acted within the scope of her employment.

Reasoning: The probate court found that the secretary stored the decedent's effects according to his instructions and her employment role.

Presumption of Revocation Based on Possession

Application: The decedent's possession of the will at death created a presumption of intent to revoke the crossed-out provisions, which the court upheld.

Reasoning: The court's findings were supported by evidence, including the decedent's possession of the will at death, which created a presumption of intent regarding the cross-outs.

Revocation of Holographic Will Provisions

Application: The court determined that the act of crossing out names on a holographic will constituted a valid partial revocation of those provisions.

Reasoning: The probate court ruled that Schumacher's act of crossing out the names constituted a revocation of those portions of the will, and thus these changes were valid and enforceable.

Testator's Intent and Extrinsic Evidence

Application: The court accepted extrinsic evidence, including attorney Gilbert's testimony, to establish the decedent's intent to revoke certain devises.

Reasoning: Extrinsic evidence is admissible to establish a testator's intent, as noted in *In re Estate of Wiltfong*.