Estate of Erickson
Utah Supreme Court
806 P.2d 1186 (1991)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Robert E. Erickson died in June 1983. Robert executed a formal will in 1955, which was admitted to probate. In 1985 Tatsumi Misaka (plaintiff) filed a petition to admit a holographic will from 1973. The alleged holographic will was three handwritten index cards without page numbers. The first card began, “8/22/73 Last Will & Test I Robert E. Erickson do hereby state that I leave . . . ” The cards continued with several bequests to Robert’s wife, Dorothy Erickson, and his two children, as well as to Misaka. The bequests were full of abbreviations, and the second and third cards did not have a clear order. The cards did not contain any closing language, and Robert’s signature was not at the end of any writing. No evidence of whether Robert intended his handwritten name on the first card to constitute a signature was presented. Robert’s estate (defendant) argued that the cards were not intended to be a will but were instead notations that Robert made to possibly become a future will. The trial court held that the cards were a valid holographic will, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that Misaka had not met his burden of establishing that Robert had signatory intent when writing his name on the first card. The Utah Supreme Court granted Misaka’s petition for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zimmerman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
