Post Death Attestation in Terms of the CA Statute - Essay Example

The witnesses be present and they will be signed in the presence of the testator (16 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, p. 2320).

The vagueness lies in the absence of the ruling related to a witness that can be classified witness to sign even after the death of the testator. Due to the fact that such a situation was not presented in the said section of the law, the decision denied the request for probate. We find nothing in the language of section 6110, or in its inspiration, Uniform Probate Code section 2-502, to preclude an otherwise qualified witness from signing a will after the death of the testator. Nevertheless, there is a split of authority in California as to the validity of an after-death signature.

In Crook v. Contreras (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1194, the court considered whether two documents complied with the witnessing requirements of section 6110 and therefore qualified as codicils. It was undisputed that both witnesses saw the testator sign the documents, but only one witness signed the documents at or about the time of their execution. Two years after the first document was executed, a year and a half after the second document was executed, and a month after the death of the testator, both witnesses signed witness attestations.2-3. The court believed that if witnesses were permitted to sign a will after the death of the testator the validity of the said will be considered in question.

Allowing the said action can be considered as putting the testator's will in jeopardy, thus, the court viewed that there is no need to change any ruling regarding the permission for post-death attestation. The court even believed that if a law that can consent post-death attestation be used, there is a great risk for fraud and the will of the testator will not be protected. In the case, the presentation in 6110 viewed that two witnesses are required and that no witnesses can be permitted to sign after the death of the testator.

These can be considered as the main basis of the first ruling of the court. Although this is the case, the said ruling will be reviewed since after the decision had been presented, the limitation of section 6110 had been reviewed. Thus, the said case and the ruling can be reversed on the basis of the new rules.