Matter of Collins, 60 N.Y.2d 466 (1983)
A will may be admitted to probate even if both attesting witnesses have forgotten the events surrounding the will’s execution, provided that the court is satisfied from all the evidence that the will was properly executed.
Summary
This case addresses whether a will can be admitted to probate under New York law when both attesting witnesses have no recollection of the will’s execution. The Court of Appeals held that it can. Bertha Collins’s 1977 will was challenged after her death. The attesting witnesses to the will testified but could not recall the circumstances of its execution. Despite this, the Surrogate’s Court admitted the will to probate, relying on the attestation clause, the genuineness of the signatures, and other testimony. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the Surrogate’s Court’s decision, emphasizing that prior law and the intent of SCPA 1405(3) allow for probate even when witnesses’ memories fail, provided there is sufficient other evidence of due execution.
Facts
Bertha Collins died in 1981, leaving a 1977 will that named William Mayne as the primary beneficiary. The will had an attestation clause and was signed by two witnesses, Mary Pedaci and Richard Skellen. During preliminary examinations, Pedaci identified her signature but had no memory of the will’s execution. Skellen recalled signing the document and reading “Will and Testament” at the top, but otherwise had no recollection. A doctor testified that he examined Collins on the day the will was made and found her mentally competent. A legal secretary and a document examiner testified to the genuineness of Collins’s signature.
Procedural History
The Surrogate’s Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss the probate petition, finding prima facie proof of due execution despite the witnesses’ lack of memory. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that SCPA 1405(3) required at least one witness to confirm the testatrix’s signature and intent. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether, under SCPA 1405(3), a will can be admitted to probate when both attesting witnesses do not recall the events surrounding the execution, but the court is otherwise satisfied that the will was properly executed.
Holding
- Yes, because the Legislature did not intend SCPA 1405(3) to radically depart from prior law, which allowed a will to be admitted to probate even if both attesting witnesses could not recall the execution, as long as there was sufficient other evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that SCPA 1405(3) was intended as a clarifying amendment, not a revolutionary change to existing law. The court noted that for over a century, New York courts have consistently interpreted predecessor statutes to permit probate even when attesting witnesses did not recall the event or testified against the will. The court quoted Matter of Kellum, 52 NY 517, 519, stating, “If the attestation clause is full and the signatures genuine and the circumstances corroborative of due execution, and no evidence disproving a compliance in any particular, the presumption may be lawfully indulged that all the provisions of the statute were complied with, although the witnesses are unable to recollect the execution or what took place at the time.” The court emphasized that the purpose of this long-standing rule was to prevent injustice when witnesses honestly forgot the event or testified falsely. The Court rejected the argument that SCPA 1405(3) now requires at least one witness to give testimony supporting due execution, arguing that this interpretation would allow a will to be defeated even with abundant other proof if both witnesses had memory lapses. Instead, the court interpreted SCPA 1405(3) to clarify that the testimony of attesting witnesses cannot be dispensed with merely because one witness has a lapsed memory; at least one other attesting witness must still be examined. The court found that the Surrogate’s Court did not err in admitting the will to probate, given the evidence presented, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to determine if the evidence was sufficient to prove the will.