## Facts

- Edward Frank Muder died on March 15, 1984, survived by his spouse, Retha Muder, and two daughters from a prior marriage, Linda Lind and Janet Hiscoe.
- About two months before his death, Muder completed a preprinted will form by handwriting entries in the blanks, including dispositive terms leaving his property to Retha, and he signed the instrument.
- Only one witness signed the instrument, making it noncompliant with Arizona’s formal will execution statute requiring two witnesses.
- Retha petitioned to probate the instrument as a will; the daughters contested validity.
- The trial court admitted the instrument to probate; the court of appeals reversed on the ground that the printed-form document did not satisfy Arizona’s holographic will statute.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the instrument was valid as a formally executed (attested) will under A.R.S. § 14-2502 despite having only one witness.
2. Whether an instrument on a preprinted form, inadequately witnessed for formal execution, can nevertheless be a valid holographic will under A.R.S. § 14-2503 when the testator’s signature and “material provisions” are handwritten.

## Decision

- The instrument was not a valid formal will under A.R.S. § 14-2502 because it lacked the required two attesting witnesses.
- The instrument was a valid holographic will under A.R.S. § 14-2503 because the testator’s signature and the material dispositive provisions (beneficiary identification and property dispositions) were in his handwriting.
- The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the trial court’s admission of the will to probate.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 14-2502 requires execution of a formal will in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by at least two witnesses.
- A.R.S. § 14-2503 validates a will as holographic even if it does not comply with A.R.S. § 14-2502, so long as the testator’s signature and the “material provisions” are in the testator’s handwriting.
- Use of a preprinted will form does not, by itself, defeat holographic validity; printed boilerplate may be disregarded if the handwritten portions supply the essential dispositive content.
- “Material provisions” focus on the handwritten identification of beneficiaries and the disposition of property, reflecting testamentary intent.

## Conclusion

Arizona recognizes a printed-form instrument as a valid holographic will when the testator handwrites the dispositive provisions and signs the document, even though the instrument fails the formal witnessing requirements for an attested will.


In re Estate of Muder, 159 Ariz. 173, 765 P.2d 997 (Ariz. 1988)