NO. 93-46

I N THC SUFREbE COURT OF THE STATE OF YONTANA

1983

ILJ TEE 3iATTER OF TEE ESTATE OF

AUGUST UiJRUH, Deceased.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Dawson, The H o n o r a b l e L. C . G u l b r a n d s o n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellant:

William B. Sherman, Conrad, Montana

For R e s p o n d e n t : @ + mi ; . n & m ! && - G l e n d i v e , P40ntana 'LC%{ 5 ;m c n t c n / p ~ ,

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Xay 2 6 , 1 9 8 3 Decided: June 30, 1983

~iled: JUN 3 0 1983

Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.

This appeal comes from the District Court of the Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Dawson. W a r e asked t o review an e

o r d e r d e n y i n g p r o b a t e of c e r t a i n p a p e r s a l l e g e d t o c o n s t i t u t e a

holographic w i l l . A u g u s t Unruh d i e d i n February 1981. After h i s death, his

d e c e a s e d w i f e ' s b r o t h e r , Raymond J o h n s o n , found an e n v e l o p e among

h i s personal belongings. The e n v e l o p e was s e a l e d and c o n t a i n e d four pieces of paper. On t h e o u t s i d e of the envelope, these

words were w r i t t e n ; "names and a d d r e s s e s of t h o s e t o be named i n

- my w i l l . " Under these words the signature of August Unruh appears. On e a c h of t h e f o u r p i e c e s of p a p e r , v a r i o u s names and addresses are l i s t e d . I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e r e a r e two l i s t s ;

o n e l i s t c o n t a i n i n g names and a d d r e s s e s of Mr. U n r u h ' s s i d e of t h e family, and t h e o t h e r c o n t a i n i n g names and a d d r e s s e s of h i s

w i f e ' s s i d e of t h e f a m i l y . On A u g u s t 9 , 1 9 8 2 , Raymond J o h n s o n f i l e d a n amended a p p l i c a - tion for formal probate of will and appointment of personal representative. I n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , Mr. J o h n s o n s t a t e d t h a t he

had b e e n u n a b l e t o l o c a t e a f o r m a l l y e x e c u t e d w i l l and t h e r e f o r e h e r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r a l l o w i n g p r o b a t e of t h e e n v e l o p e and t h e accompanying f o u r p i e c e s of p a p e r . A hearing

was h e l d after which the court entered its order denying the application. W e affirm.

Appellant contends that the writings met the statutory r e q u i r e m e n t s of a h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l , and any q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g Mr. Unruh's intent could be proved by oral evidence. A

holographic w i l l i s one t h a t f a i l s t o meet t h e f o r m a l r e q u i r e -

ments of section 72-2-302, MCA. A writing "is valid as a h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l , whether o r not w i t n e s s e d , i f t h e s i g n a t u r e and

t h e m a t e r i a l p r o v i s i o n s a r e i n t h e h a n d w r i t i n g of t h e t e s t a t o r . "

S e c t i o n 72-2-303, MCA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e s i m p l y no t e s t a m e n t a r y p r o v i s i o n s . W agree. e The p a p e r s a r e o n l y l i s t s of v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . A w i l l i s an " i n s t r u m e n t

by which a p e r s o n makes a d i s p o s i t i o n of h i s property, . . . a

l e g a l d e c l a r a t i o n of a m a n ' s i n t e n t i o n , which he w i l l s t o be p e r -

formed after h i s death. . ." B a l l e n t i n e s Law D i c t i o n a r y , 1371

(3rd Ed. 1969). Here there is no disposition of property.

Appellant also argues that testimony from p e o p l e who knew Mr.

Unruh should have been admitted to show that he intended all

those persons listed to share equally. However, a valid will

must exist before it can be construed or interpreted. In Re

Estate of Gudmunsen (1976), 1 6 9 Mont. 53, 5 4 5 P.2d 146. The

e n v e l o p e and t h e f o u r p a p e r s do n o t c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d w i l l .

The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

W e concur:

Ph-4 4qpcAdlccQJJ Chief ~ u s t i c e "