## Facts

- Gladys G. Tipler executed a formally attested will (Apr. 2, 1982) leaving most of her estate to her husband, James Tipler, if he survived her; the will did not state an alternate plan if he died first.
- Two days later (Apr. 4, 1982), she executed a handwritten codicil stating that if her husband predeceased her, “his last Will and testament upon his death” would control as their agreement, while reserving to either spouse the ability to change their plans.
- At the time the codicil was written, James Tipler had not yet executed a will.
- James Tipler later executed a will (shortly before his death) creating a trust for Gladys Tipler during her life with remainder distributions to his relatives.
- James Tipler died in 1990; Gladys Tipler died in 1994.
- A dispute arose whether Gladys Tipler’s estate should pass under her codicil by reference to her husband’s will (benefiting his family) or instead pass to her heirs at law (if the codicil was invalid).
- The probate court upheld the codicil as a valid holographic instrument and ordered distribution of her estate according to James Tipler’s will, relying on the doctrine of facts of independent significance.
- Gladys Tipler’s heirs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the handwritten codicil satisfied Tennessee’s holographic-will statute requiring that all “material provisions” be in the testator’s handwriting.
2. Whether beneficiaries and shares for Gladys Tipler’s estate could be determined by reference to her husband’s later-executed will under the doctrine of facts of independent significance.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court.
- The holographic codicil was valid because its material provisions—identifying the triggering event and directing disposition pursuant to the husband’s will—were in the testatrix’s handwriting.
- The court applied the doctrine of facts of independent significance to consult James Tipler’s will to identify the beneficiaries and their shares.
- Gladys Tipler’s estate was distributed in accordance with the dispositive provisions of James Tipler’s will.

## Legal Principles

- A holographic codicil satisfies the “material provisions” requirement when the testator’s handwriting supplies the essential dispositive direction, even if the instrument relies on an external document to supply specific names and shares.
- Incorporation by reference is distinct from facts of independent significance; a referenced writing need not have existed when the codicil was executed if the later writing is consulted as a fact or document with an independent purpose.
- The doctrine of facts of independent significance permits a court to determine beneficiaries and shares by reference to facts or documents that have significance apart from affecting the disposition of the testator’s estate, such as another person’s will disposing of that person’s own property.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a holographic codicil directing that the testatrix’s estate follow her spouse’s testamentary plan and permitted use of the spouse’s later will to identify takers and shares because the spouse’s will had independent significance as a disposition of his own estate.


In re Will of Tipler, 10 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)