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

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:

• In writing
• Signed
• 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).

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.