## Facts

- In 1968, Helen L. White executed a formal will, prepared with the assistance of her attorney, Robert J. Stoecklein.
- The will left White’s estate primarily to Jennifer L. Jones (also known as Jennifer L. Manson).
- The will was drawn on Stoecklein’s stationery, and Stoecklein served as one of the attesting witnesses.
- After the will’s execution, White never spoke with Stoecklein about changing or revoking the will.
- At some later time, White wrote a handwritten notation in the otherwise blank margin of the will stating: “This will is void,” and further stating that she was not leaving Jones anything; the notation was dated April 17, 1971.
- The marginal notation was not signed by White and was not witnessed.
- The marginal notation did not touch, line through, or otherwise deface any of the will’s written provisions.
- After White’s death, her heirs at law filed a will contest against Stoecklein (as executor) and the will beneficiaries, asserting that the marginal notation revoked the will (or at least revoked the bequest to Jones).
- The will proponents moved for summary judgment, and the parties stipulated to the material facts about the writing and its placement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the will proponents, and the heirs appealed, agreeing that the dispositive question was whether the marginal writing revoked the will.

## Issues

1. Does an unsigned, unwitnessed handwritten marginal notation stating the will is “void,” which does not touch or deface the will’s text, revoke the will (or a bequest) under Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.33?
2. Does Ohio Rev. Code § 2741.04 (providing that will-contest issues are tried by a jury) prevent summary judgment when the material facts are undisputed?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the executor and beneficiaries.
- The marginal notation did not revoke the will because it did not satisfy any statutory method of revocation in Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.33.
- The jury-trial language in Ohio Rev. Code § 2741.04 did not bar summary judgment (or a directed verdict) when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the case turns on a question of law.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.33 supplies the exclusive methods for revoking a will, and revocation is effective only when those statutory methods are met.
- A marginal handwritten statement that does not touch or deface the will’s provisions is not a “cancellation” within the meaning of the statute.
- A revocation by “some other writing” requires the writing to be signed and executed with will-type witness formalities; an unsigned, unwitnessed note is ineffective.
- A will-contest statute directing that issues be tried to a jury does not eliminate summary judgment or directed verdict practice when the record shows no triable fact dispute.

## Conclusion

Because White’s handwritten marginal note was neither a statutory physical cancellation of the will’s text nor a signed and properly witnessed revocatory writing, it did not revoke the 1968 will under Ohio Rev. Code § 2107.33, and the court properly affirmed summary judgment for the executor and beneficiaries despite the will-contest jury-trial statute.


Kronauge v. Stoecklein, 293 N.E.2d 320 (1972)