E -Wills: A c o nstruc tio n a nd fra me wo rk T .J. Rya n F - PDF document

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 E -Wills: A c o nstruc tio n a nd fra me wo rk T .J. Rya n F ra ze r Rya n Go ldb e rg & Arno ld, L L P Arizo na Sta te Ba r Co nve ntio n - June 29, 2018 E le c tro nic wills • Sta tuto ry F ra me wo rk fo r Va lid Will • Cha lle ng e s to Va lidity o f Wills • Ca pa c ity • Undue I nflue nc e • E le c tro nic Wills Sta tute s e ffe c tive July 1, 2019 1

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 Wills – sta tuto ry fra me wo rk • Who ma y ma ke a will (14-2501) • 18 ye a rs o f a g e a nd o f “so und mind.” • No n-Ho lo g ra phic Will must b e (14-2502): • I n writing ; • Sig ne d b y te sta to r OR in the te sta to r’ s na me b y so me o the r individua l in the te sta to r’ s c o nsc io us pre se nc e a nd b y the ir dire c tio n; • Sig ne d b y two pe o ple , within a re a so na b le time a fte r the se pe rso ns (i) witne sse d the sig ning o f the will b y the te sta to r o r (ii) the te sta to r’ s a c kno wle dg e me nt o f the ir sig na ture , o r (iii) te sta to r’ s a c kno wle dg e me nt o f the Will; Wills – sta tuto ry fra me wo rk • Ho lo g ra phic Wills (14-2503): • F a ils to c o mply with 14-2502’ s re q uire me nts; • Sig na ture is te sta to r’ s ha ndwriting ; a nd, • “Ma te ria l pro visio ns” o f the Will a re in ha ndwriting o f te sta to r. 2

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 Wills – sta tuto ry fra me wo rk • Se lf-Pro ve d Wills (14-2504) • Will ma y b e simulta ne o usly e xe c ute d, a tte ste d, a nd ma de -se lf pro ve d b y a n a c kno wle dg e me nt o f the te sta to r a nd b o th witne sse s b e fo re a n o ffic e r a utho rize d to a dministe r o a ths, a nd a c e rtific a te o f suc h o ffic e r. • E ffe c tive ly, a n a ffida vit o f va lid e xe c utio n. • Witne sse d Will ma y b e ma de se lf-pro ve d a fte r e xe c utio n b y a n a c kno wle dg e me nt o f the te sta to r a nd b o th witne sse s b e fo re a n “o ffic e r a utho rize d to a dministe r o a ths” (no ta ry) • A te sta to r’ s sig na ture to a se lf-pro ving a ffida vit is c o nside re d “a tta c he d to a will” fo r purpo se s o f pro ving the Will’ s e xe c utio n (14-2504(C)) Wills – sta tuto ry fra me wo rk • Witne ss re q uire me nts (14-2505) • A pe rso n who is “g e ne ra lly c o mpe te nt” to b e a witne ss ma y a c t a s a witne ss to a will. • An “inte re ste d” witne ss do e s no t inva lida te the will o r a ny pro visio n o f it. 3

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 Wills – witne sse s • Witne ss re q uire me nts – Bussbe rg v. Walke r • F a c ts: • Bra dle y sig ne d will in pre se nc e o f he r b o yfrie nd, Wa lke r, a nd No ta ry. • No ta ry c o nfirme d Bra dle y wa s c o mpe te nt a nd no t unde r dure ss. • No ta ry no ta rize d sig na ture s o f Bra dle y a nd Wa lke r. • Afte r Bra dle y’ s de a th, e stra ng e d so n (E ve rso n) c ha lle ng e d the Will, c la iming the re we re no t two witne sse s a s re q uire d b y sta tute . • Supe rio r Co urt a g re e d; Wa lke r a ppe a le d. Wills – witne sse s • Witne ss re q uire me nts – Bussbe rg v. Walke r • Appe a l: • Sta tuto ry I nte rpre ta tio n – De No vo Re vie w • A.R.S. § 14-2502(A)(3) re q uire s tha t the will b e sig ne d “b y a t le a st two pe o ple , e a c h o f who m sig ne d within a re a so na b le time a fte r tha t pe rso n witne sse d e ithe r the sig ning o f the will … o r the te sta to r’ s a c kno wle dg e me nt o f tha t sig na ture o r a c kno wle dg e me nt o f the will.” • E ve rso n a rg ue d tha t a fo urth re q uire me nt is ne c e ssa ry: T ha t the pe o ple must sig n “a s a witne ss.” • Arg ue d tha t the No ta ry wa s a c ting a s a no ta ry, no t a “witne ss.” 4

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 Wills – witne sse s • Witne ss re q uire me nts – Bussbe rg v. Walke r • Appe a l: • Ct o f App.: T o “witne ss” me a ns no thing o the r tha n to ha ve “o b se rve d o r pe rc e ive d the te sta to r’ s sig ning o r a c kno wle dg e me nt.” • Similarly, A.R.S. § 14-2505(A) re q uire me nt tha t so me o ne who is “g e ne ra lly c o mpe te nt” ma y ‘ a c t a s a witne ss” sho uld no t b e c o nstrue d to re q uire so me o ne sig n a nd b e de sig na te d “a s a witne ss” to a Will. • Ct. o f App. Co nstrue d 14-2505(A) “o nly a s a b ro a d a llo wa nc e tha t o ne ne e d no t ha ve pa rtic ula r q ua lific a tio ns (unre la te d to po we rs o f o b se rva tio n o r pe rc e ptio n) to “witne ss” a will.” Wills – witne sse s • Witne ss re q uire me nts – Bussbe rg v. Walke r • Appe al: • T urning to the No ta ria l Ac t: • An “Ac kno wle dg e me nt” is a “no ta ria l a c t in whic h a no ta ry c e rtifie s tha t a sig ne r, who se ide ntity is pro ve n b y sa tisfa c to ry e vide nc e , appe a re d b e fo re the no ta ry a nd a c kno wle dg e d tha t the sig ne r sig ne d do c ume nt.” A.R.S. § 41-311(1); A.R.S. § 33-503. • T hus, the No ta ry’ s a c kno wle dg e me nt sa tisfie d A.R.S. § 14-2502(A)(3) b y c e rtifying tha t Bra dle y (i) a ppe a re d b e fo re he r a nd (ii) a c kno wle dg e d tha t Bra dle y ha d sig ne d the will. • T he No ta ry furthe r te stifie d tha t she pe rso na lly witne sse d Bra dle y sig n the will. T hus, e ve n witho ut he r no ta ria l a c kno wle dg e me nt, she q ua lifie d a s a witne ss. 5

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 Sta nda rds fo r Ca pa c ity • Ca pa c ity: whe the r a pe rso n ha s suffic ie nt me nta l a b ility to e ng a g e in o r pe rfo rm a pa rtic ula r tra nsa c tio n. • Va rio us le ve ls: a pe rso n ma y po sse ss the re q uisite c a pa c ity to e ng a g e in o r pe rfo rm a spe c ific tra nsa c tio n, b ut tha t sa me pe rso n, a t the sa me time , mig ht no t po sse ss the re q uisite c a pa c ity to e ng a g e in o r pe rfo rm a diffe re nt tra nsa c tio n. Sta nda rds fo r Ca pa c ity • Ca pa c ity to Co ntra c t. All pe rso ns a re pre sume d to ha ve the re q uisite me nta l c a pa c ity to e nte r into a b inding c o ntra c t, a nd a pa rty c ha lle ng ing the va lidity o f a c o ntra c t o n the g ro unds o f inc a pa c ity ha s the b urde n o f pro ving la c k o f c a pa c ity b y c le a r a nd c o nvinc ing e vide nc e . S e e He ndric ks v. S impe r , 24 Ariz. App. 415, 418, 539 P.2d 529, 532 (1975). • T he te st o f whe the r a pe rso n ha s suffic ie nt c a pa c ity to e nte r into a b inding c o ntra c t is “whe the r, unde r a ll the c irc umsta nc e s, [the ] pe rso n’ s me nta l a b ilitie s ha ve b e e n so a ffe c te d a s to re nde r him inc a pa b le o f unde rsta nding the na ture a nd c o nse q ue nc e s o f his a c ts, tha t is, una b le to unde rsta nd the c ha ra c te r o f the tra nsa c tio n in q ue stio n.” I d. 6

Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council 9/12/2018 Sta nda rds fo r Ca pa c ity • Ca pa c ity to Gift Pro pe rty. A pa rty c ha lle ng ing the va lidity o f a g ift b e a rs b urde n o f pro ving tha t the do no r la c ke d the re q uisite c a pa c ity a t the time the g ift wa s ma de . Cf. E ag e rto n v. F le ming , 145 Ariz. 289, 292, 700 P.2d 1389, 1392 (App. 1985) (ho lding tha t a pa rty c ha lle ng ing the va lidity o f a g ift o n g ro unds o f undue influe nc e ha s the b urde n o f pro ving the e xiste nc e o f a fiduc ia ry re la tio nship b e twe e n the do no r a nd the do ne e ). • “Whe re the re la tio nship o f the pa rtie s is suc h tha t the do ne e ha s a na tural c la im o n the g e ne ro sity o f the do no r, c o urts lo o k with fa vo r o n a c la im o f g ift.” Chire ko s v. Chire ko s , 24 Ariz. App. 223, 227, 537 P.2d 608, 612 (1975). Sta nda rds fo r Ca pa c ity • Ca pa c ity to Gift Pro pe rty. • T ra nsa c tio ns, de e ds, wills a nd o the r instrume nts e xe c ute d b y tho se o f a dva nc e d ye a rs a re g e ne ra lly uphe ld b y c o urts a g a inst a tta c ks o n the a lle g e d g ro und o f me nta l we a kne ss b e c a use o f the infirmitie s o f a g e . F ro m a g e a lo ne no pre sumptio n a g a inst c o mpe te nc y o r o f undue influe nc e a rise s. F urthe rmo re , it se e ms to b e the la w tha t in the a b se nc e o f sta tute to the c o ntra ry, a pe rso n o f a de q ua te me nta lity ha s the rig ht to g ive a wa y pa rt o r a ll o f his o r he r pro pe rty, a s the c a se ma y b e , if he wishe s to do so . A g ift whic h is c o nsiste nt with la w will no t b e de c la re d invalid me re ly b e c a use the c o urt re g a rds the do no r’ s a c t a s impro vide nt. E ve n though the gift is conside r e d as unr e asonable , if othe r wise lawful it may not be se t aside . • Amado v. Ag uirre , 63 Ariz. 213, 218-19, 161 P.2d 117, 119 (1945) (c ita tio ns o mitte d, e mpha sis a dde d). 7