## Facts

- Charles Kuralt maintained a decades-long intimate relationship with Elizabeth Shannon while married and provided her significant financial support and gifts.
- Kuralt acquired and developed Montana real property on the Big Hole River, eventually totaling about 90 acres, including a cabin associated with his relationship with Shannon.
- In 1989, Kuralt executed a handwritten will leaving all Montana real and personal property to Shannon.
- In 1994, Kuralt executed a formal will revoking prior wills and leaving his estate primarily to his wife and children, with no gift to Shannon.
- In April 1997, Kuralt arranged for Shannon to receive a 20-acre portion of the Montana property through a deed transaction funded by him.
- On June 18, 1997, while hospitalized and seriously ill, Kuralt wrote and signed a handwritten letter to Shannon, enclosed two checks, and stated his intent to have his attorney ensure Shannon would “inherit” the remaining Montana property if he died.
- Kuralt died on July 4, 1997, before completing any further conveyance of the remaining Montana parcels.

## Issues

1. Whether the June 18, 1997 handwritten letter expressed a present testamentary intent to transfer the remaining Madison County, Montana property to Shannon.
2. Whether the district court erred by treating the letter as a codicil to the 1994 will without providing a separate opportunity to be heard on that characterization.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment admitting the June 18, 1997 letter to probate as a valid holographic codicil.
- The Court held substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that the letter reflected present testamentary intent regarding the Madison County property.
- The Court held the district court did not commit procedural error by characterizing the letter as a codicil where the litigation and hearing addressed that theory and the Estate had an opportunity to contest it.

## Legal Principles

- A handwritten, signed writing may be admitted as a holographic will or codicil if it satisfies statutory holograph requirements and is executed with testamentary intent, even if it takes the form of informal correspondence.
- Testamentary intent may be shown by the document’s language and by surrounding circumstances, including the testator’s belief of impending death and a specific intent to transfer identified property to a named beneficiary at death.
- A later testamentary writing that does not dispose of the entire estate may operate as a codicil modifying an earlier will rather than as a wholly new will, leaving the earlier will otherwise intact.
- Use of terms associated with succession at death (such as “inherit”), combined with evidence of imminent death and an established plan to benefit the recipient, can support a finding of present testamentary intent rather than a mere future intention to execute additional documents.

## Conclusion

The court upheld probate of Kuralt’s handwritten hospital letter as a holographic codicil because it conveyed a present intent that Shannon receive the remaining Montana property upon his death, and it properly functioned as a partial modification of the existing formal will rather than a replacement of the entire estate plan.


In re Estate of Kuralt, 15 P.3d 931 (Mont. 2000)