## Facts

- Homer Eugene Williams had two biological children from his first marriage, including Eric Williams Towle.
- Williams later remarried; his second wife had a daughter, Deborah Ann Cox. Williams never formally adopted Cox.
- After Williams’s second wife died, Cox moved in with Williams and cared for him for about 17 years until his death.
- Williams told Cox that she would receive his house when he died and that she would be named executor.
- After Williams died, Towle petitioned to administer the estate on the theory that Williams died intestate and was appointed personal representative.
- Without notifying Cox, Towle arranged for Williams to be cremated and no funeral was held.
- Cox later found a handwritten document in Williams’s desk and offered it for probate as a holographic will.
- The document was titled “Last Will, Etc. or What? Of Homer Eugene Williams.”
- The document appointed Cox and another relative as executors and listed their names and addresses.
- The document made several directions and dispositions, including personal property to a nephew, a statement about not wanting life support, a listing of assets, and a statement that Cox should be able to live in Williams’s house as long as she wished before sale.
- The document lacked a conventional cursive signature at the end and was not dated; the house value stated in the document suggested it was written years before Williams died.
- After a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the probate court admitted the document to probate as a holographic will and appointed Cox as executor.
- Towle appealed the orders admitting the will and appointing Cox.

## Issues

1. Whether a handwritten document can qualify as a valid holographic will under California Probate Code § 6111 when it lacks a traditional end-of-document signature but contains the decedent’s handwritten name and identifying writing.
2. Whether the document showed sufficient testamentary intent to operate as a will rather than informal notes or instructions.
3. Whether a holographic will is invalid because it does not dispose of all of the decedent’s property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate orders.
- The court held there was substantial evidence supporting the probate court’s finding that the decedent’s handwritten name and identifying information within the document functioned as a “signature” for purposes of Probate Code § 6111.
- The court held the document, read as a whole and in light of the surrounding circumstances, supported a finding of testamentary intent.
- The court rejected the argument that a will must dispose of all assets to be valid; any undisposed property may pass by intestacy.
- Because the will was properly admitted, the order appointing Cox as executor under the will was also affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Probate Code § 6111, a holographic will is valid if the “signature” and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting.
- A “signature” for a holographic will is not limited to a cursive subscription at the end; the testator’s handwritten name or other identifying handwriting may qualify if written with intent to authenticate the document as a will.
- The location of the signature on the document is relevant but not controlling; the key question is whether the writing was intended to serve as authentication.
- Testamentary intent is determined from the language of the writing taken as a whole, and the probate court may consider surrounding circumstances when the intent is disputed.
- A will is not invalid merely because it makes an incomplete disposition of the testator’s property; partial intestacy is permitted.
- On appeal, factual determinations such as whether the testator intended a writing to be a will, and whether handwriting served as a signature, are reviewed for substantial evidence rather than reweighing competing proof.

## Conclusion

In re Estate of Williams affirmed admission of an informal handwritten document as a holographic will, holding that the decedent’s handwritten name and identifying matter could satisfy the statutory signature requirement when intended to authenticate the instrument, that the document’s title and provisions supported testamentary intent, and that a will may be valid even if it does not dispose of every asset.


In re Estate of Williams, 155 Cal. App. 4th 197 (2007)