People execute wills in various ways. Some sign formal documents prepared by attorneys with witnesses present. Others handwrite simple documents disposing of their property. Texas law accommodates both approaches through different requirements for attested wills and holographic wills. However, one question frequently arises: what constitutes a valid signature on a will?
The Texas Estates Code requires that wills be “signed by the testator.” This language appears straightforward. However, Texas courts have long recognized that signatures need not take any particular form. A testator’s mark can constitute a valid signature. An “X” can suffice. Even a rubber stamp may qualify under certain circumstances. The question becomes whether the testator intended the mark to express approval of the document as his or her will.
Jones v. Jones, 649 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, no pet.), provides an opportunity to examine when initials on a will, standing alone, can satisfy the signature requirement.
Facts & Procedural History
Wendell married Ladan in 1979. They remained married until Ladan’s death on January 27, 1995. Wendell and Ladan had three children during their marriage: Susan, Daniel, and Jonathan.
After Ladan’s death, Wendell married Jeannine on June 11, 1995. On the same day following their wedding ceremony and reception, Wendell and Jeannine each executed wills. Wendell drafted and typed both wills himself.
Wendell and Jeannine executed their wills on their wedding day because they planned to fly to Oregon following the wedding. They wanted to ensure Wendell’s minor children would be looked after if something happened to them on the airplane or while out of state.
Wendell’s will provided for his estate to be awarded to Jeannine if she survived him. The will named Jeannine as executor of his estate. If Jeannine did not survive him, the will provided that his estate would pass to his children.
The first six pages of Wendell’s will contained substantive provisions disposing of his property, appointing an executor, and providing for guardianship of his minor children. These first six pages contained the initials “W.M.J.” and the date “6-11-95” in the bottom left corner of each page.
The seventh page contained a place with blanks for the date and Wendell’s signature. Wendell’s handwritten signature did not appear on this page. Only his typewritten name appeared above the signature line. Below the blank for Wendell’s signature was an attestation clause signed by four witnesses: David, Diane, Mohommad, and Robert.
Wendell’s will also contained a self-proving affidavit signed by a notary public. Like the signature page, the self-proving affidavit contained Wendell’s typewritten name but not his handwritten signature.
Wendell died on November 27, 2017. On January 17, 2018, Jeannine offered Wendell’s June 11, 1995 will for admission to probate in Travis County. On February 15, 2018, Jonathan filed a petition contesting the will. Jonathan argued the will did not comply with requirements for valid execution.
On September 9, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on Jonathan’s will contest. Two of the subscribing witnesses—Onvani and Woolsey—testified about the will signing. Both testified they saw Wendell initial the will.
The trial court denied Jeannine’s application to probate the will. The court found no signature on the will. The court noted that although Wendell initialed pages one through six, there were no initials on the attestation clause or self-proving affidavit. Jeannine appealed.
The Signature Requirement Under Sec. 251.051
Section 251.051 of the Texas Estates Code establishes requirements for valid wills. Except as otherwise provided by law, a will must be in writing. The will must be signed by the testator in person. The will must be attested by two or more credible witnesses who are at least fourteen years of age and who subscribe their names to the will in their own handwriting in the testator’s presence.
The parties did not dispute that Wendell’s will was in writing. They disputed whether the will was properly signed and attested. These two requirements became the focus of the appeal.
Texas courts have been lenient regarding the location and form of signatures on wills. Courts have held there is no requirement that a testator’s signature match exactly the typewritten version of his name. A testator’s “X” mark alone suffices for a valid signature. A rubber stamp of a testator’s signature can be valid. Even a signature wholly written on a typewriter can satisfy the requirement.
The Court of Appeals cited In re Estate of Standefer, 530 S.W.3d 160, 166 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, no pet.), for the principle that Texas courts have been lenient regarding location and form of signatures. Multiple cases support this flexible approach to determining what constitutes a signature.
In Orozco v. Orozco, 917 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied), the court held a testator’s “X” mark alone was sufficient for a valid signature. In Phillips v. Najar, 901 S.W.2d 561, 561-62 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ), the court held a rubber stamp of the testatrix’s signature was valid. In Zaruba v. Schumaker, 178 S.W.2d 542, 543-44 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1944, no writ), the court held a signature was sufficient where the testatrix’s will was wholly written on a typewriter and signed by writing her name on the typewriter.
A signature may be informal and its location of secondary importance if the maker intended his or her name or mark to constitute a signature expressing approval of the instrument as the maker’s will. The facts and circumstances surrounding the instrument’s execution may be considered in determining whether the maker intended a testamentary disposition of property.
Texas courts have explicitly held that signatures by initials are sufficient to execute wills—whether holographic or attested—if done with testamentary character. The key inquiry remains whether the testator intended the mark to constitute an expression of testamentary intent.
When Initials Express Testamentary Intent
The Court of Appeals found instructive the decision in Mortgage Bond Corp. of New York v. Haney, 105 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1937, writ ref’d). In that case, appellees argued the statute did not provide that a testator may execute a will by making a mark as signature. The Beaumont Court of Appeals rejected this argument.
The court noted the will showed the testator signed by her mark. One witness to the will testified he was present and saw the testator sign the will and heard her declare it to be her last will and testament. Therefore, the court held that any question of the testator’s intent that the mark was intended as her signature was fully met.
The Dallas Court of Appeals relied on similar evidence in In re Estate of Matteson, No. 05-12-01420-CV, 2013 WL 3355385 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 2, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). There, the testator previously signed a typed will attested by two witnesses. Three years later, the testator handwrote and initialed several changes to the previous will. These changes included striking his daughters’ names as devisees and naming his granddaughter as sole devisee and independent executor.
After the testator made and initialed these changes, three witnesses signed the document. The granddaughter sought to probate the modified will. The probate court denied her application. On appeal, the granddaughter argued the initials satisfied the signature requirement because the testator signed by initialing the changes with intent to approve the document as his will.
The Dallas court agreed. The court acknowledged that signatures by initials are sufficient to execute wills if done with requisite intent. As evidence of requisite intent, the court cited testimony from attesting witnesses that the testator asked them to witness changes he was making to his will. The witnesses testified the testator made the changes and initialed them. The attesting witnesses testified the typed will along with the testator’s handwritten changes constituted his last will and testament.
Evidence of Wendell’s Testamentary Intent
Jeannine presented similar evidence in this case. Jeannine offered testimony from two of the four subscribing witnesses—Onvani and Woolsey. Both provided uncontroverted testimony that they participated in the will signing ceremony following Wendell and Jeannine’s wedding.
The trial court found that neither Onvani nor Woolsey testified they saw Wendell initial the will. The trial court found they testified only that they saw him sign the will. However, both witnesses unequivocally testified they saw Wendell sign his initials on the will.
Woolsey testified that Wendell signed the will in the presence of four witnesses. Woolsey then testified Wendell signed his initials and date on the will in Woolsey’s presence. Woolsey clarified that the initials “WMJ 6-11-95” on the first six pages were what he saw Wendell sign on the will. Woolsey confirmed on cross-examination that he saw Wendell initial or sign the will.
Onvani likewise testified he saw Wendell initial the will. When asked “Did you see him initial the will?”, Onvani responded “Yeah, he initialed it and then—yeah.”
As further evidence of Wendell’s intent to sign the will, Onvani testified Wendell asked him to sign as a witness to his will. Woolsey testified Wendell declared to the witnesses that the will was his last will and testament. Woolsey further testified he had no doubt that Wendell expected this to be his will.
Jonathan presented evidence challenging whether Wendell intended his initials as his signature. Jonathan pointed to three facts. First, Wendell drafted the will and therefore must have been aware of the two spaces above his typewritten name on the signature page and self-proving affidavit. Second, although these pages had space for Wendell’s signature, they did not contain his handwritten signature. Third, Jonathan testified his father was “fastidious” and would not have made the mistake of not signing the will.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the will did not contain Wendell’s handwritten signature on the signature page. However, the court concluded the presence of Wendell’s initials constituted his signature so long as he made them with requisite testamentary intent. The lack of a handwritten signature on the last page did not impact analysis of his intent.
The court reasoned that if omission of a handwritten signature could always be evidence of a testator’s intent not to execute a will, then no other mark would ever satisfy the signature requirement. This interpretation would contradict numerous Texas cases holding there is no formal requirement as to form or location of signatures.
The Takeaway
This case confirms that Texas law imposes no formal requirements on the form or location of signatures on wills. Initials can constitute valid signatures if the testator intended them to express approval of the document as his or her will. Evidence of this intent can come from testimony of attesting witnesses who saw the testator make the initials, heard the testator declare the document to be his will, and were asked by the testator to witness the will signing. The absence of a handwritten signature on a designated signature line does not negate the validity of initials appearing elsewhere on the will when other evidence establishes the testator intended the initials as his signature.
Do you need help with a probate matter in Austin or the surrounding area? We are Austin probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 512-273-7444.
Our Austin Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate administrations. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
