## Facts

- Javier Castro was hospitalized in December 2012 and refused a blood transfusion for religious reasons, understanding the refusal could result in death.
- While hospitalized on December 30, 2012, Javier discussed making a will with his brothers Miguel and Albie Castro.
- Lacking paper, Miguel wrote Javier’s dictated terms on Albie’s Samsung Galaxy tablet using a stylus in a note-taking application that saved the handwriting as written.
- The brothers read back each portion as it was written, discussed the content, and then read the full document back to Javier.
- Later that day, Javier signed the document on the tablet; Miguel and Albie testified they saw him sign.
- Javier’s nephew, Oscar De Leon, later signed as a witness; he did not see Javier sign but testified Javier told him he had signed.
- The electronic document consisted of three pages with numbered dispositive paragraphs and identified itself as Javier’s will; the last page contained signatures of Javier, Miguel, Albie, and Oscar.
- Albie retained the password-protected tablet; Miguel and Albie testified the document was not altered after execution and the printed copy submitted to court was an exact duplicate.
- Javier died on January 30, 2013. Javier’s parents, who would take under intestacy if the document were invalid, did not contest probate and stated they would follow the document’s terms regardless.

## Issues

1. Whether a stylus-written document stored on a tablet qualifies as a will “in writing” that is “signed” by the testator under Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.03.
2. Whether the evidence proved, by the required standard, that the tablet document was Javier Castro’s last will and testament.

## Decision

- The probate court admitted the tablet document to probate as Javier Castro’s last will and testament.
- The court held that the tablet-based handwritten note was a “writing” and that the testator’s stylus-applied name at the end constituted a valid “signature” under Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.03.
- The court found clear and convincing evidence that the document was intended as, and operated as, Javier’s will.
- The court concluded the witnessing requirements were satisfied because at least two competent witnesses either saw the testator sign or heard him acknowledge his signature and subscribed in his conscious presence.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory requirement that a will be “in writing” may be satisfied by an electronic document where the content is fixed and reliably reproducible, absent a statutory medium restriction.
- A signature requirement may be satisfied by an electronically captured handwritten signature made with a stylus, where the act reflects the testator’s intent to authenticate the will.
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.03 permits attestation by witnesses who either see the testator sign or hear the testator acknowledge the signature, provided the witnesses subscribe in the testator’s conscious presence.
- Testamentary intent and due execution may be established through credible witness testimony and surrounding circumstances, supporting a clear and convincing evidentiary finding even when execution occurs outside traditional paper formalities.

## Conclusion

The probate court construed Ohio’s will formalities to permit an electronically handwritten, tablet-stored, stylus-signed document to qualify as a written and signed will, and admitted the instrument to probate based on clear and convincing evidence of due execution and testamentary intent.


In re Estate of Castro, No. 2013ES00140 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Prob. Div. June 19, 2013)