## Facts

- Vasil Pavlinko and his wife, Hellen Pavlinko, arranged for an attorney to prepare reciprocal wills leaving each spouse’s estate to the other, with residuary gifts to shared relatives, including Hellen’s brother, Elias Martin.
- The wills were executed on March 9, 1949, with attorney and secretary witnesses.
- By mistake, Hellen signed the will drafted for Vasil, and Vasil signed the will drafted for Hellen.
- The instrument later offered for probate stated on its face, “I, Hellen Pavlinko … do hereby make … this to be my Last Will and Testament,” gave the residue to “my husband, Vasil Pavlinko,” and, if he predeceased, to “my brother, Elias Martin.”
- Hellen died in 1951; the instrument she signed (in Vasil’s form) was not offered for probate.
- Vasil died in 1957, and Martin offered the Hellen-form instrument bearing Vasil’s signature for probate as Vasil’s will.
- The Register of Wills refused probate; the Orphans’ Court affirmed; Martin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a document that expressly purports to be the will of one person but is signed by another can be admitted to probate as the signer’s will.
2. Whether clear extrinsic evidence of reciprocal intent permits a court to treat the mistaken execution as harmless, or to reform the document, notwithstanding statutory will-execution formalities.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the refusal of probate.
- The court held the offered instrument was a nullity as to Vasil because it unambiguously purported to be Hellen’s will and did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the testator sign the will that is his or hers.
- The court declined to correct the mistake or to probate the instrument based on intent, emphasizing the anti-fraud and administrability functions of strict formalities.
- A dissent would have given effect to the evident testamentary plan, relying on the reciprocal nature of the wills and the clarity of intent.

## Legal Principles

- A will must comply with statutory execution requirements, including that the testator sign the instrument that purports to be the testator’s will.
- Courts will not rewrite or reform an unambiguous testamentary instrument to substitute a different testator’s identity based on extrinsic evidence of mistake.
- Clear testamentary intent does not cure a fundamental execution defect where relaxing formalities would materially weaken safeguards against fraud and uncertainty.

## Conclusion

Because the document Vasil signed expressly declared itself to be Hellen’s will, Pennsylvania treated the mismatch between the named testator and the signer as a fatal defect and refused probate, enforcing strict compliance with will-execution formalities even in the face of undisputed reciprocal intent.


In re Pavlinko’s Estate, 148 A.2d 528 (Pa. 1959)