## Facts

- Duane Francis Horton II (age 21) died by suicide in December 2015.
- Shortly before his death, Horton wrote an undated handwritten journal entry stating that his “final note” and “farewell” were on his phone in Evernote under “Last Note,” and provided access credentials.
- Horton also created a typed note stored only in the Evernote app on his phone; it ended with his typed full name and contained no handwriting.
- The Evernote note included personal statements, requests about funeral arrangements, and specific directions for distributing property after his death.
- The property directions included instructions to transfer items tied to Horton’s father and grandmother to his uncle, to give the car to “Jody” if possible, and to route funds—especially a trust fund—to his half-sister Shella while expressly excluding his mother (“only her. Not my mother.”).
- Guardianship and Alternatives, Inc. (GAI), Horton’s former court-appointed conservator, petitioned to probate the Evernote note as Horton’s will and to be appointed personal representative.
- Horton’s mother, Lanora Jones, contested, asserting the Evernote note could not be a will and that Horton died intestate with her as sole heir.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court admitted the Evernote note to probate under Michigan’s harmless-error statute, finding clear and convincing evidence that Horton intended it to be his will.

## Issues

1. Whether a purely electronic note stored in Evernote on a cell phone can qualify as a “document or writing” for purposes of Michigan’s harmless-error statute, MCL 700.2503.
2. Whether the proponent proved by clear and convincing evidence that Horton intended the Evernote note to constitute his will.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s order admitting the Evernote note to probate.
- The court held that “document or writing” under MCL 700.2503 can include a purely electronic record that was never printed or physically signed.
- The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Horton intended the Evernote note to operate as his will.
- The court rejected the argument that the note had to satisfy the formal requirements for witnessed wills or holographic wills, because MCL 700.2503 supplies an independent path to validity when intent is proven.

## Legal Principles

- Under MCL 700.2503, a nonconforming “document or writing” may be treated as validly executed if the proponent establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended it to constitute the decedent’s will (or another qualifying testamentary instrument).
- “Document or writing” in MCL 700.2503 is not limited to paper records; a court may consider an electronic record a qualifying writing.
- The central inquiry under the harmless-error statute is testamentary intent, proved by clear and convincing evidence, assessed from the document’s content and the surrounding circumstances.
- References in a separate authenticated writing that identify, locate, and connect the decedent to a specific electronic record can support a finding that the electronic record was intended to speak at death.
- Detailed post-death distribution directions and an authenticating typed name can support a conclusion that an electronic note was meant to function as a will.

## Conclusion

The court upheld probate of a typed Evernote note as a valid will under Michigan’s harmless-error statute, ruling that an electronic record can qualify as a “document or writing” and that clear and convincing evidence—especially the handwritten cross-reference and specific distribution instructions—showed the decedent intended the note to control the disposition of his estate.


In re Estate of Horton, 925 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)