## Facts

- Charles Kuralt executed a holographic will (1989) leaving his Montana real and personal property to Patricia Shannon.
- Kuralt later executed a formal will in New York (1994) revoking prior wills and leaving most of his estate to his wife and daughters; it did not mention Shannon or specifically dispose of the Montana property.
- Kuralt owned Montana property in Madison County associated with Shannon and had taken steps during his life to transfer portions of it to her.
- While hospitalized and seriously ill in June 1997, Kuralt wrote Shannon a handwritten letter enclosing checks and stating he would have a lawyer visit to be sure she would “inherit the rest of the place in Montana, if it comes to that.”
- Kuralt died in July 1997 before executing a new deed, codicil, or other formal instrument addressing the remaining Montana property.
- The estate initiated probate under the 1994 will; Shannon sought ancillary probate in Montana, asserting the June 1997 letter was a valid holographic testamentary instrument disposing of the remaining Montana property.

## Issues

1. Whether the June 1997 handwritten letter could reflect present testamentary intent sufficient to qualify as a holographic testamentary instrument regarding the Montana property.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper because material factual disputes existed concerning the letter’s testamentary character and Kuralt’s intent.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment in favor of the estate.
- The Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed on whether the letter was testamentary in nature and whether it expressed present testamentary intent.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the letter’s legal effect based on a developed factual record.

## Legal Principles

- A writing’s status as a holographic testamentary instrument depends on compliance with statutory handwriting/signature requirements and, critically, the testator’s testamentary intent.
- Testamentary intent is commonly a fact-intensive inquiry that may be proven through the document’s language and surrounding circumstances.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable factfinders could differ on whether an informal writing was intended to dispose of property at death.

## Conclusion

The Court required further factfinding on whether Kuralt’s handwritten letter operated as a testamentary disposition of the Montana property, concluding that disputes over testamentary intent and the letter’s character could not be resolved on summary judgment.


In re Estate of Kuralt, 294 Mont. 354, 981 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1999)