In re Snide
52 N.Y.2d 193. 418 N.E.2d 656.


Procedure:Appeal was taken from an order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, which reversed a decree of the Hamilton County Surrogate's Court, admitting decedent's will to probate.

Facts:Harvey and Rose Snide executed substantially identical wills. Due to a mistake, however, Harvey signed the will drafted for Rose, and Rose signed Harvey's will. After Harvey's death, Rose petitioned to reform Harvey's will and have it admitted to probate. Two of the couple's children, who had reached the age of majority, consented to the reformed will without objection, but a guardian ad litem representing the couple's minor child refused to concede to the validity of the will because intestate succession was the only means by which the minor child would receive anything from the estate. The surrogate court reformed the will and admitted it to probate, but the appellate division reffibrsed.

Issue: Whether a will can be admitted to probate it does not have the testator’s signature if the testator mistakenly signed another’s will where he and another intended to execute mutual wills at the same will execution ceremony.

Holding:The Court of Appeals, Wachtler, J., held that a will which was executed with the required formalities by decedent, whose testamentary capacity and intention and belief that he was signing his will were unchallenged, was properly admitted to probate, even though decedent and his wife, intending to execute mutual wills at a common execution ceremony, each executed by mistake the will intended for the other, which instrument, except for the obvious differences in the names of donors and beneficiaries, were in all other respects identical.

Rule: Under narrow circumstances, a will can be validated through reliable evidence of a valid testamentary scheme, although formalistic requirements are lacking.

Dissent (Jones, J.) Despite the regrettable circumstances, New York precedent does not allow for the mistakenly signed will to be admitted to probate. The decision should be affirmed.

Analysis: The Restatement (Third) of Property allows for the reformation of a will if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the will contains a mistake of fact or law and that its provisions are contrary to the testator's true intentions. This standard was satisfied in this instance because the wills were part of a joint will scheme, with each will substantively identical to the other. If the wills had not contained such similar terms, proof of the decedent's mistaken belief and true intention may be more difficult to establish.