Cases of Interest to Bequest Managers in 2024-2025: Part 1

Because CCK has a practice group dedicated exclusively to managing bequests for charitable and other nonprofit organizations, we monitor relevant legal cases, both published and unpublished. We do this not only to keep our own staff informed, but also to produce materials that we share with the nonprofit community.

Each year, one of our newsletters reviews recent cases that those in the gift planning world may find interesting and useful. We proudly present our third such review. The cases discussed are mostly from mid-2024 to mid-2025. Many have not been featured in any of our earlier publications.

As always, we caution that the selection of below cases is eclectic but not exhaustive. We have simplified complex factual situations so that we can achieve our purpose, which is to provide bequest managers with practical guidance for everyday tasks and the occasional outlier case. To that end, we continue to offer editorial commentary on the selected cases to place them squarely in the mix of what bequest managers do.

What Makes a Will Valid?

Much bequest litigation continues to focus on whether technically imperfect wills are “good enough” to be probated. Results are unpredictable.

Louisiana Takes a Tough Approach

In a surprising decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected a will that had been accepted by the probate court. The will was in substantial compliance with Louisiana law except for the fact that the testator “initialed” rather than “signed” most of the pages and formally signed only the final page.

In ruling that “initialing” is not “signing,” the court acknowledged that it was bucking the trend toward relaxation of traditional requirements for wills. Succession of Frabbiele, 397 So.2d 391 (La. 2024).

Minor Misstep Invalidates Will

Lest one think that the Frabbiele case is a one-state anomaly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi invalidated the will of Effie May Autry.

The problem? The witnesses failed to record their addresses on the signature page of the will as required by statute. Estate of Effie Mae Autry, 2025 WL 998842 (Miss.2025). This seemingly minor deviation rendered the document ineffective.

Very Defective Will Accepted

In another Louisiana case (this time a lower court) a holographic will riddled with errors was presented for probate. The will was dated twice (the dates were nine years apart) and signed in the wrong place. Nonetheless, this shaky testament was admitted to probate.

This was surprising for two reasons. First, the decision is at odds with the spirit of Frabbiele (decided by the Supreme Court of the same state). Second, since a holographic will is already a significant exception to the formality rules, courts often enforce the remaining requirements. See Succession of Brocato, 2025 WL 616568. (La.App.) (discussing parameters of substantial compliance for holographic wills).

“Informal” Wills Must Still Be Wills

A valid will must be: (1) in writing; (2) signed; and (3) designated as a will. The third requirement reflects the principle behind typical testamentary language such as “I declare this to be my last will.”  In short, a will must somehow refer to death. See In Re Estate of Riss, 2025 WL 1147569 (Tn.App.) (nothing in the purported will shows “a clear intention of the manner in which Decedent wished to dispose of her property upon her death”); see also Matter of Estate of Beck, 557 P.3d 1255 (Mt. 2024) (cellphone video cannot be a will because it is not in writing and also does not show testamentary intent); Succession of Serio, 398 So.3d 732 (La.App. 2024) (writing that simply states that a relative should “get my stuff” cannot be considered as a will).

CCK COMMENT FOR CHARITIES:  When the “harmless error” statutes were introduced fifty years ago, commentators predicted a dramatic uptick in probate litigation over the validity of wills. They were correct. Depending on the situation, charities can be in an offensive or defensive posture in these contests. Absent very persuasive law in their favor, organizations may wish to be flexible in reaching a negotiated resolution, i.e., a settlement. The terms of the settlement (e.g., 80/20, 50/50, 20/80) will depend on the relative strength of the competing legal positions.

Pay on Death (POD) Designations

A sizable portion of testamentary gifts come from “POD” (pay on death) bank accounts, retirement plans and life insurance policies. These vehicles are governed by rules that the custodians establish. Historically, such requirements have been strictly enforced, and the liberalization of will-related rules has had insignificant effect on PODs.

Custodian’s Strict Reading of Designation Nullifies Beneficiary Gift

In Veucasovic v. Veucasovic, 2024 WL 3548803 (Mi.App. 2024), the court approved Fidelity’s refusal to pay a 50% share of an IRA to the decedent’s son. The designation provided that the son’s money would be passed through a family trust. The decedent never created the trust.

In paying the account to the decedent’s estate instead of directly to his son, Fidelity was certainly within its rights. It is less clear that the testator would have approved.

The Relationship is Gone, The POD Lingers On

In Furtsch v. O’Dell 2025 WL 586551 (Tn.App. 2025), a divorce agreement gave the former husband sole and absolute ownership of his retirement account.  The beneficiary had been his (now) ex-wife. The husband neglected to remove the prior designation before his death and the entire account was awarded to the former wife despite the marital settlement.

In a bizarre case, Estate of Arnold, 553 P.3d 264 (Col.App. 2024), Michael and Annette had signed a settlement agreement to end their romantic relationship. Michael paid Annette $25,000 to release all claims against his property. Earlier, while they were still together, he had named her as beneficiary of a savings account. He never changed the designation and by the time of his death (a decade later) the asset had grown to $165,000. Annette claimed and was awarded the full proceeds of the account over the understandable but unsuccessful objections of Michael’s surviving sister, who was the beneficiary of his estate.

The Exception Illustrates the Rule

One recent case, In Re Isley, 330 A.3d 682 (Md. 2025), is a rare instance of a later marital property agreement prevailing over a beneficiary designation on a retirement plan. Wife worked for the federal government and designated Husband as beneficiary on her plan. The pair subsequently divorced, and Husband gave up his rights to the retirement money as part of the settlement.

Wife never changed the beneficiary designation. When she died, the settlement prevailed over the beneficiary designation and Husband did not get the money. Tellingly, the only reason things ended that way is that the custodian – in this case the government – had rules in place permitting that outcome. As always, the custodian’s policies prevailed.

CCK Comment for Charities

These cases confirm that the custodian has the final word on the proper payee of POD accounts. The determination will sometimes contravene the clear intention of the decedent. Gift planners would do well to encourage bequest prospects to keep designations current. More broadly, it is critical that the donors disclose to someone the existence and location of beneficiary accounts. These assets are the most likely to wind up on unclaimed property lists precisely because the executor or trustee was unaware of them. NOTE: In rare instances (mostly in the states of Louisiana and Washington) a countermanding directive in a will can change a beneficiary designation, but this is the exception and not the rule.

Lost Wills

Few situations are as troubling as a lost will, especially if a surviving copy evidences a significant charitable bequest. The law pertaining to lost wills is not intuitive. A court will not probate a missing will without straightforward proof of (1) the prior existence of the will; (2) the contents of the will; and (3) the non-revocation of the will. A photocopy normally satisfies the first two requirements. As to the third, how does one prove that a testator did not revoke the document? If the original will is missing, the law presumes the testator revoked it. It takes “clear and convincing” evidence to probate a lost will, and that is a hard standard to meet. However, it should come as no surprise that the results in lost will cases are unpredictable. The bottom line is that the charity trying to probate a copy of a lost will usually has an uphill battle.

Lost Will, Copy Rejected

Nicholas Kittrie was an eminent law professor and a Pulitzer Prize nominee. He prepared his will in 1998 and left a Miami condominium to his girlfriend Georgette Sobel. He gave her a copy of the will. In 2004 and 2016, he made preliminary notes (Notes) about changes to his estate plan. The Notes left intact the plans for the condominium gift to Ms. Sobel.

Dr. Kittrie’s original will was missing when he died in 2019. Ms. Sobel tried to probate her copy of the 1998 will. The decedent’s family opposed, arguing that the Notes signaled an intent to revoke. Ms. Sobel insisted that they showed his continuing desire to make the condominium gift to her. The court found no proof that he had not revoked his will. The family won the case, Kittrie’s will was ignored and Ms. Sobel got nothing. Estate of Kittrie, 318 A.3d 1200 (DC App 2024).

Lost Will, Copy Admitted to Probate

Payne v. Estate of Groves, 2024 WL 4100744 (Tn.App.) concerned the probate of a copy of a handwritten will. The original document was nowhere to be found. The Payne court admitted the copy to probate after authenticating the handwriting of decedent Groves and taking testimony about his testamentary intentions.

The Groves court ignored the “presumption of revocation,” took a common-sense approach and may well have gotten the result the decedent would have wanted. Nonetheless, it took a far more forgiving stance than is typical in lost will cases. For example, in another Tennessee case, Estate of Rucker, 2024 WL 3271986 (Tn.App.), the court refused to probate a copy of the decedent’s will even though there was substantial evidence that the recent document was the “finishing touch” on a thoughtful estate plan intending to provide for a “lost” daughter. The will was rejected because of the absence of proof that he has NOT revoked the will, the same standard the D.C. court applied in Kittrie.

CCK Comment for Charities:

The lost will cases are thought-provoking. Their practical lesson is that charities should remind testators of the importance of maintaining original estate documents in a safe place and disclosing their location to appropriate parties. Turning to the legal standards, proving that a will was NOT revoked is difficult, if not impossible as a matter of logic.

More cynically, we suspect some wills are “lost” because those who would benefit from intestacy have first access to the document after the testator’s death. It might make more sense if courts abandoned the “proving the negative” test that characterizes these cases and instead adopted a rule such as “a surviving copy of an otherwise valid will can be accepted for probate unless there is substantial evidence that the testator revoked it.”  Such an approach would honor the decedent’s intentions in most cases.

The Graves case adopts a facts-and-circumstances approach that seems promising. It evokes comparisons to a famous 1876 British “lost will” case that American lawyers still occasionally cite. It makes the character of the testator a factor in assessing whether revocation occurred.

St. Leonards was the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. His will was missing at his death, particularly odd since he read it aloud every night and his daughter Charlotte heard it so many times that she memorized it. The judge in the case found it inconceivable that a man like St. Leonards would have revoked his will without making another one and proceeded to probate the lost document.

FUN FACT:  In the pre-Xerox era, the contents of St. Leonard’s will were provided to the court via Charlotte’s written recollection of the bedtime readings that she had memorized as a child! Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards, (1876), 1 P.D. 154 (Eng. C.A.).