## Facts

- Ethel Kuttler wrote and signed a handwritten document addressing the distribution of her property if she died before executing a formal will.
- The writing stated she did not want certain relatives, including her three grandchildren, to receive any of her property.
- The writing directed that her sister (Bertha McQuarrie) and her fiancé (Earl Hayter) “dispose of my belongings as they see fit.”
- Kuttler died without executing any other will; her only intestate heirs were the three grandchildren she attempted to exclude.
- McQuarrie and Hayter petitioned to admit the writing to probate as a holographic will and to act under the authority granted by it.
- The grandchildren opposed, contending the writing was not testamentary and the estate should pass by intestacy.
- The probate court refused probate, finding the writing non-testamentary; McQuarrie and Hayter appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the decedent’s handwritten instrument showed testamentary intent sufficient to qualify as a holographic will, despite informal language and reference to a future will.
2. Whether the instruction authorizing McQuarrie and Hayter to “dispose of my belongings as they see fit” created an enforceable testamentary power to distribute the estate rather than a nonbinding expression of wishes.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying probate.
- The court held the instrument was testamentary in character and should be admitted to probate as a valid holographic will.
- The court held the writing conferred on McQuarrie and Hayter a broad testamentary power to dispose of the decedent’s property.
- The case was remanded with directions to admit the instrument to probate and give effect to the granted power of disposition.

## Legal Principles

- A writing is testamentary if it reflects an intent to control the disposition of property at death; no particular form of words is required.
- A holographic will may be valid without witnesses if it is in the testator’s handwriting and manifests testamentary intent.
- Language anticipating a later formal will does not defeat testamentary intent when the writing is intended to operate if no later will is executed.
- A will may create a power of appointment or broad power of disposition without technical terminology if the testator intended to confer authority to decide the ultimate distribution of the property.
- When reasonably possible, instruments are construed to favor testacy over intestacy, especially where the decedent clearly sought to prevent certain heirs from taking by intestate succession.

## Conclusion

The court treated the handwritten instrument as a valid holographic will because it was intended to govern the estate at death if no later will existed, and it was enforced as granting the named individuals broad discretionary authority to distribute the decedent’s property rather than allowing the estate to pass by intestacy to heirs the decedent sought to exclude.


In re Kuttler’s Estate, 325 P.2d 624 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)