Are holographic wills really routinely thrown out by probate courts? A lot of states do not permit holographic wills and specifically state in their laws that an unwitnessed will is invalid. This seems like a cruel provision to me. So, if a person writes out in their own handwriting a proper will which is signed and dated, but it is not witnessed, then the state will just throw it out? For a person having no heirs this could be disastrous because instead of the money going to the intended charities and friends, instead the money would just go to the government if the will gets thrown out. Does this actually happen? Also, any answer to this question I would hope will address the legal principle that the law &quot;favors testacy over intestacy&quot;. In other words, there is a legal principle in common law that it is always better to follow some kind of intent of the deceased, whatever that might be, rather than treat them as completely intestate. This principle would seem to conflict with some state laws that brusquely state that wills that fail to comply with various technical provisions, such as holographic wills, are invalid.
The page &quot;States Where Holographic Wills Are Legal&quot; from legal zoom lists some 26 united-states states in which holographic wills are valid, plus 9 more that will recognize such wills when they are written elsewhere. Beyond that, some states consider a holographic will valid for only a limited time, such as one year, after its date. The idea seems to be that a holographic will is supposed to be for emergency situations, when there is no opportunity to have a will drafted and witnessed in the usual way. Under the common law, holographic wills were valid, if they met a few requirements, such as being entirely in the handwriting of the testator. This satisfied the legal principle that the law &quot;favors testacy over intestacy&quot;. But such principles never prevail over specific statutes, and the states that disallow holographic wills have generally done so by statute. Holographic wills can be harder to prove, cause court contests, and can perhaps be more subject to fraud, or legislators may have thought so. In any event, they have been made invalid in many jurisdictions. My understanding is that in a state that does not recognize a holographic will, a will not properly witnessed will often be ignored in favor of the legal heirs, that is those who would inherit if there were no will. I am not at all sure about the case where there are no legal heirs, and the state would inherit in the absence of a will. Perhaps there probate judges have more discretion. Examples I could not find much caselaw or many news reports about holographic wills, and no case where there were no heirs-at-law, and the alternative was for the estate to go to the state (escheat), although some sites mention the possibility. It seems that few cases dealing with holographic wills are not only brought to court, but appealed so that published opinions on them can be found. The page &quot;New York Holographic Will&quot; (from a law office site) says: A holographic will is a unique type of will that will only be considered valid if it is made under certain extreme conditions. In all other circumstances, a holographic will will not be valid and will not be probated. If this happens, then your estate will be treated as if you died without leaving a will. In New York if you do not leave will your estate will be disposed of according to the laws related to intestate succession. NY EPTL § 4-1.1. ... If you die leaving only a holographic will and the court determines it to be invalid, then there is a possibility that your property will end up in the hands of New York state. If you are not survived by any relatives, then your property will escheat to the state. The page &quot;Handwritten wills can translate into probate problems&quot; says: In one Arizona case, a partially typed and handwritten document was invalidated. A grandmother’s wishes were tossed aside, and her granddaughter did not share in her legacy. Ther page &quot;Holographic Will Florida&quot; (From a lawyer's blog) says: Holographic wills are invalid in Florida and therefore your assets will pass according to the Florida Intestacy Statute. Your assets located in the State of Florida will pass by the Florida Intestacy Statute even if you validly executed your holographic will in another State that allows holographic wills and then you later move to Florida. ... Finally, if there is nobody that applies, meaning you have no family at all, the property will escheat (transfer) to the State of Florida. The *National Law Reviewe article &quot;Court Holds That Holographic Will Was Not Valid As There Was No Signature&quot; says: In In the Estate of Hohmann, the decedent died without leaving an executed will, but his caretaker found a hand written document wherein the decedent stated his wishes for his property. No. 04-20-00237-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9216 (Tex. App.—San Antonio November 25, 2020, no pet. history). ... The court held that the hand-written document had not been signed and was not valid: Here, we see no evidence in the written instrument indicating that Raymond intended the phrase “R. Hohmann Estate” to serve as his signature. In the case Estate of FRANCES BURNS BLACK, Deceased. (L.A. No. 31280. Supreme Court of California. March 1, 1982.) Richardson, J. wrote: Where, as here, there is no conflict in the evidence, &quot;'the validity of the holographic instrument must be determined entirely by reference to the applicable statutes and principles of law.' [Citations.]&quot; (Estate of Baker (1963) 59 Cal. 2d 680, 683 [31 Cal. Rptr. 33, 381 P.2d 913].) Unanimously in Baker, we stressed that &quot;The policy of the law is toward 'a construction favoring validity, in determining whether a will has been executed in conformity with statutory requirements' [citations].&quot; (Ibid.) Moreover, we affirmed &quot;'the tendency of both the courts and the Legislature ... toward greater liberality in accepting a writing as an holographic will. ...'&quot; (Ibid.) &quot;'Substantial compliance with the statute, and not absolute precision is all that is required. ...'&quot; ... In construing section 53 we bear in mind the primary legislative purpose of the holographic will statute which was identified by us in Estate of Dreyfus (1917) 175 Cal. 417, 418-419 [165 P. 941], as the prevention of &quot;fraudulent will-making and disposition of property&quot; by virtue of the recognized difficulty of forging an entire handwritten instrument. ... As noted by Professor Osborn: &quot;An extended holograph ... is perhaps the most effective means of proving practical execution, even more than witnesses, and the law relating to holograph wills recognizes this fact. ...&quot; (Osborn, Questioned Documents (2d ed. 1929) p. 682 ... Our liberal statutory interpretation and emphasis on &quot;substantial compliance&quot; expressed in Baker has been well understood, for there have been few reported decisions subsequent thereto which have adopted the hypertechnical application of section 53 to holographic wills which we disapproved in Baker. ... No sound purpose or policy is served by invalidating a holograph where every statutorily required element of the will is concededly expressed in the testatrix' own handwriting and where her testamentary intent is clearly revealed in the words as she wrote them. Frances Black's sole mistake was her superfluous utilization of a small portion of the language of the preprinted form. Nullification of her carefully expressed testamentary purpose because of such error is unnecessary to preserve the sanctity of the statute. Moreover, rejection of the instrument as a will would have the unfortunate practical consequence of passing her estate through the laws of intestacy to the daughter of her predeceased husband by a former marriage -- in fact, a stranger to her -- thereby excluding those whom she described in the holograph as &quot;my very dear friends&quot; and &quot;my adopted family&quot; and the charity which was apparently close to her heart and which she specifically wished to benefit. In the case of Wilson v. Polite 218 So. 2d 843 (1969) JONES, Justice wrote: It was alleged in said petition that the said writing was not valid in law as a will, because it did not comply with Section 657 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated (1956) in that it was not subscribed by the said Clara Thompson. ... The sole question is whether this instrument constitutes a holographic will. No person has an inherent or constitutional right to make a will disposing of his property. Such is a privilege extended to the citizens by the State. 94 C.J.S. Wills § 3, p. 680 (1956); ... It is a requisite to a valid will that it be executed as prescribed by statute. ... No matter how earnestly one may desire and intend to make a will, a paper, although fully intended by the writer to be a will, is ineffective and invalid unless its execution meets statutory requirements. The purpose of statutes prescribing formalities for the execution of wills is not for the purpose of restricting the power of testator to dispose of his property, but it is to guard against mistakes, impositions, undue influences, fraud, deception, etc., which would divert the property of the testator from those intended by him or her to inherit same. The formalities are for the testator's protection also, as well as the beneficiaries'. ... We have before us here what is claimed to be a holographic will. To be such it must be executed in accordance with the specific requirements of the statute. It must be laid on the table beside the statute to determine whether its execution is in accord therewith. If it is not executed as provided by the statute, it is not a will, regardless of the intention of the alleged testator. ... An instrument offered as a holographic will must be a complete and executed document, although absolute precision of execution is not necessary, and all that is required is a clear showing on the face of the instrument of its execution in conformity with the law. ... In summary, the court has construed the statute regarding holographic wills to mean (1) it must be signed at the end of a document, testamentary in character, which shows on its face that the testamentary purpose therein expressed is completed, (2) nothing which follows the signature may be considered, (3) if the writing does not meet the requirements of the statute the intent of the writer is immaterial. The part of the document in question which precedes the signatures thereon fails to show on its face that the testamentary purpose was completed. On the contrary the purported signatures appear in the middle of a sentence. ... No where is there a court authorized to make a will for any decedent and that is exactly what we would be doing if we said we were going to strike out those words in this instrument which keeps it from being a will. (There was a strong dissent in this case, which I omit.)
I will not speak to your specific situation. I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction and real estate contracts are one of the most highly regulated contracts so local statutes may override common law. In general, the terms of a contract are what the parties agree; the written document is not the contract - it is evidence of the contract. In a case where the parties agree that the written version is wrong then the written version is wrong. Where the parties disagree that the written version is wrong (or agree that it is wrong but disagree as to how) then each will need to provide evidence to support their position. A signed written contract that supports one parties position is extremely strong evidence! The other party would need to provide some overwhelming evidence to trump this. The general position that the courts take is that the written contract accurately documents the agreement unless someone can prove that it doesn't.
German perspective: In German law, there is the concept of Schöpfungshöhe (threshold of originality), which is required for authorship rights (Urheberrecht) to apply to a work. Basically, the idea is that a minimum of creativity is required for something to be protected. However, that bar is rather low. Thus, for example: Literary works are protected practically always. Maps are generally protected, even though you might argue they "slavishly copy nature", because the act of choosing what to show and what not is already creative. However, a faithful photographic reproduction of a painting is not eligible for Urheberrecht to apply (LG Berlin, AZ 15 O 428/15) So yes, a "slavish copy" of a work would not qualify for protection if there is no creativity involved. Note, however, that other types of protection apart from Urheberrecht might apply, such as Sui generis database right.
What happens when a person dies intestate is that the court appoints someone to be the executor. That person is supposed to settle the decedent's debts, and divide the remainder equally among the siblings. It is virtually guaranteed that the mortgage-holder will get their share – you can't just sell a house with a mortgage and run. In the meantime, the estate has to keep paying the mortgage and property taxes. The executor has wide latitude to dispose of the estate, and clearing out personal possessions is a necessary part of liquidating the estate. Those possessions being part of the estate, they &quot;count&quot;, therefore that mink coat worth $10,000 can't just be &quot;taken&quot; by the executor in order to tidy things up. But that broken weed-eater worth $1 can just be thrown away and not stored for some months, waiting for the final reckoning. The executor is entitled to compensation for his work and reimbursement for his expenses, so nickle and diming the small possessions is probably economically counterproductive. The executor has the legal power to determine how the legally required distribution is carried out, that is, the law doesn't require a majority vote of the heirs in order to dispose of each and every item of property. If there is an actual legal dispute, if you believe that the executor is improperly carrying out the job, you can hire a lawyer to have him removed, or otherwise put pressure on him to get a change in how things are. This will probably cost you more than you might get from the estate. It is possible that the real estate market will not support the current sale price and therefore a lower asking price is necessary (i.e. the executor needs a reality check). A combination real estate agent + lawyer could help you figure out what to do with the house to make it sell.
What can I do to prevent someone from leaving me something in their will? Nothing. Allowing other people to legally change someone's will defeats the purpose of a will: To express the writer's last wishes. (That is why the full title is a "Last Will &amp; Testament"). Do I have to take responsibility for things left to me in a will or are there other options? No! You do not have to accept an inheritance. The legal process for rejecting an inheritance is called "disclaiming." It happens often enough that there are plenty of nice summaries of the process on-line. Your next step should probably be to read one of them.
The core principle of stare decisis is that the law should not depend on what judge you got; two cases with the same facts should have the same outcome. In the common-law tradition, there weren't really written statutes; there was only "what's been done in the past," and so the only reference you'd have to what the law should be in some situation is past court decisions. If judges didn't have some constraints to rule similarly to before, there really wouldn't be any legal standards (because there was no written law to go back to; in civil-law countries, there always has been a written law, so precedent isn't so important). Stare decisis doesn't actually directly stop a judge from entering a decision that goes against binding precedent. However, judges are expected to obey precedent, and for the most part do what they're supposed to do. If they don't, the case will likely be reversed on appeal. Binding precedent only applies within the area a court serves; a court doesn't have to listen to precedent from a different court that has nothing to do with the case. The rule is that precedent from any court up the appeals chain is binding; federal district courts are bound by their circuit court and SCOTUS, state courts are bound by higher state courts and SCOTUS (but not other federal courts, as the case can't be appealed to them). A court can sometimes overrule its own precedent, but the cases where it can do that are rare (and so applying a higher court's precedent can also be viewed as "if you appeal to them they'll say X, so we're saying X.")
In Wisconsin, right after the perjury law, they have a law prohibiting "false swearing". It applies if a person: Makes or subscribes 2 inconsistent statements under oath or affirmation or upon signing a statement pursuant to s. 887.015 in regard to any matter respecting which an oath, affirmation, or statement is, in each case, authorized or required by law or required by any public officer or governmental agency as a prerequisite to such officer or agency taking some official action, under circumstances which demonstrate that the witness or subscriber knew at least one of the statements to be false when made. The period of limitations within which prosecution may be commenced runs from the time of the first statement. So even if they couldn't actually get you for perjury, they could get you for violating this law. Perjury and false swearing are both class H felonies, so you can expect the same punishment. I am going to guess that the existence of this law suggests that it was needed to cover what would otherwise be a loophole in the perjury law, but I can't say for sure.
Assume that this happened in a matter that goes to court. In civil court, there is no "innocent until/unless proven guilty". In civil court, the judge hears everyone's story, and decides which story is more likely to be true. So I tell the judge "I sent a letter by registered mail; this is what was in the letter, and the post office reported to me that they delivered the mail, and someone signed for it". And you say "I never received a letter". The judge will believe me and the post office. You say "I received a letter and signed for it, but there was just a birthday card inside". Who does the judge believe? Does he or she believe that you received a letter with the contents I said and you are lying about it, or does she believe that I sent you an unsolicited birthday card by registered mail? Why would I do that? So they believe me. Now if you said "I received a registered letter containing just a birthday court, so I immediately called my secretary and three other people in the office to see this and to verify there was nothing but the birthday card, and here they are as witnesses", then the court might start believing you.