## Facts

- Ronald N. Dahly (the decedent) executed a written last will and testament on October 19, 1977, and later executed a codicil on February 2, 1984.
- After executing those instruments, Ronald N. made handwritten changes on the will and/or codicil, including crossing out provisions, changing wording, and adding heirs.
- In the margin, Ronald N. wrote: “Please draw up new will making all changes noted here,” and signed beneath the note.
- The handwritten changes and note were not signed and witnessed with the formalities required for executing a will or codicil, and they did not include signatures of two attesting witnesses.
- Ronald N. died on January 16, 2003, survived by his wife, Maxine Dahly, and his son, Ronald E. Dahly.
- Approximately two weeks after the death, Maxine filed a petition for administration, attached a copy of the will, sought appointment as personal representative, and asserted rights as a pretermitted spouse.
- Ronald E. filed a petition to compel production of the original will and also objected to Maxine’s appointment as personal representative.
- Maxine then produced the original will, which contained the handwritten alterations and the signed marginal note.
- At a probate hearing on the pending matters, Maxine challenged the validity of the will and codicil, arguing the handwritten alterations rendered them invalid.
- Ronald E. argued the handwritten changes did not amount to a valid alteration or revocation under Florida law and that the will and codicil should be admitted to probate in their original, unaltered form.
- The probate court ruled that the will and codicil were “invalid and non-enforceable.”
- Ronald E. appealed to Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether handwritten interlineations, cross-outs, and a signed marginal note instructing someone to “draw up [a] new will,” without attesting witnesses or other statutory formalities, validly revoked or modified the will and codicil under Florida law.
2. Whether the probate court erred by declaring the will and codicil invalid and unenforceable instead of admitting the will and codicil to probate in their unaltered form.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the probate court’s order.
- The court held that the decedent’s handwritten “mark-ups” and signed instruction to prepare a new will did not satisfy Florida’s statutory requirements for revocation or alteration of a will or codicil.
- The court remanded with directions to admit the will and codicil to probate in their unaltered form.

## Legal Principles

- Florida requires wills and codicils to be executed with statutory formalities, including the testator’s signature and attestation by two witnesses. See § 732.502, Fla. Stat.
- A will or codicil may be revoked or altered only through methods recognized by statute; attempted changes that do not meet those requirements are ineffective.
- Handwritten edits on the face of a formally executed will, without proper witnessing and execution, do not operate as a valid codicil and do not change the will’s dispositive terms.
- A signed note requesting that a new will be prepared is not, by itself, a new will, a codicil, or a revocation when statutory formalities are missing.
- An ineffective attempt to change a will does not nullify an otherwise validly executed will and codicil; the original instruments remain operative as executed.

## Conclusion

Because Ronald N. Dahly’s handwritten changes and signed marginal request to draft a new will were not executed with the witness and execution requirements imposed by Florida probate statutes, they did not revoke or modify the existing will and codicil; the appellate court therefore reversed the probate order and directed that the unaltered will and codicil be admitted to probate.


Dahly v. Dahly, 866 So. 2d 745 (2004)