In re Estate of Snide, 52 N.Y.2d 193 (1981)
When mutual wills are mistakenly signed by the wrong party but are otherwise identical and executed with proper formality, the court may admit the mistakenly signed will to probate if the testator’s intent is clear and there is no evidence of fraud.
Summary
Harvey and Rose Snide intended to execute mutual wills, but each mistakenly signed the will prepared for the other. The wills were identical except for the names. Harvey’s will left everything to Rose. After Harvey’s death, Rose offered the will Harvey signed for probate. The Surrogate’s Court admitted the will and reformed it. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the will inadmissible. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the will could be admitted to probate. The court reasoned that because the mistake was genuine, the testamentary intent was clear, and there was no evidence of fraud, the will should be admitted.
Facts
Harvey and Rose Snide intended to execute mutual wills. The wills were prepared such that Harvey’s will left his estate to Rose, and Rose’s will left her estate to Harvey. At the execution ceremony, the wills were placed in envelopes, mistakenly labeled such that each received the other’s will. Neither Harvey, Rose, the attorney, nor the witnesses noticed the error, and Harvey signed the will intended for Rose, and Rose signed the will intended for Harvey. The wills were otherwise identical.
Procedural History
Rose Snide, as the proponent, offered the instrument Harvey signed for probate in Surrogate’s Court. The Surrogate decreed the will admissible and reformed it to reflect the correct names. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the instrument could not be admitted to probate. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether a will mistakenly signed by the wrong testator, but intended to be executed by that testator as part of a mutual will agreement and otherwise executed with proper formality, can be admitted to probate.
Holding
Yes, because the mistake was genuine, the testamentary intent was clear, the wills were mutual and identical in substance, and there was no evidence of fraud.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the critical element for a valid will is testamentary intent. While that intent usually attaches to the document signed, the court declined to take such a formalistic view in this case. The court emphasized that the dispositive provisions of the two wills were identical except for the names and that the variance was fully explained by considering the documents together and the surrounding circumstances. The court distinguished the case from those where testamentary intent was truly lacking. The court stated: “Under such facts it would indeed be ironic — if not perverse — to state that because what has occurred is so obvious, and what was intended so clear, we must act to nullify rather than sustain this testamentary scheme.”
The court addressed the concern that this ruling would open the door to widespread reformation of wills, clarifying that the holding was limited to the specific facts of the case: identical mutual wills executed simultaneously with statutory formality. The court emphasized that there was no danger of fraud, and refusing to read the wills together would expand formalism without any benefit. “Not only did the two instruments constitute reciprocal elements of a unified testamentary plan, they both were executed with statutory formality, including the same attesting witnesses, at a contemporaneous execution ceremony. There is absolutely no danger of fraud, and the refusal to read these wills together would serve merely to unnecessarily expand formalism, without any corresponding benefit. On these narrow facts we decline this unjust course.”