The Supreme Court of Montana recently ruled against the validity of a video recording as a will in the Matter of Estate of Beck, 557 P.3d 1255 (Mont. 2024). Four days before his death, Beck recorded a selfie video on his phone, stating his wish to leave all his possessions to his brother. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that the video was not a valid will under Montana law.
The court’s decision hinged on Montana’s statutory requirements for a valid will. Montana requires a will to be a “document or writing upon a document.” The court emphasized that although the video undoubtedly expressed Beck’s intent, it did not qualify as a “document” as required by the statute. The court’s decision highlighted the limitations of current statutory frameworks in accommodating non-traditional forms of wills. The court referenced the UEWA but noted that the Montana legislature had not adopted it. The court also observed that the UEWA still requires a will to be “readable as text” and signed by the testator and witnesses. The court pointed out that no state has legislatively authorized nonwritten video wills, nor has any court applying the Uniform Probate Code approved such a will.
The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in Beck underscores the challenges of adapting existing legal frameworks to accommodate new forms of testamentary documents. The court’s decision to reject the video recording as a valid will highlights the need for legislative updates to address the evolving nature of testamentary documents
An earlier ruling in Michigan validated an electronic will under the state’s “harmless error” rule. In re Estate of Horton, 925 N.W.2d 207 (Mich.Ct. App. 2018). The case involved a 21-year-old man who died by suicide, leaving behind a typed note on the Evernote app on his phone. The conservator of the estate claimed that Horton intended the note, which included personal sentiments and detailed instructions for the distribution of his property, to serve as his final will. The court found that the combination of the document’s contents, the surrounding circumstances, and extrinsic evidence provided clear and convincing evidence of Horton’s testamentary intent. The court admitted the electronic document to probate as a valid will despite the absence of witnesses or a handwritten signature.
The Michigan Court of Appeals’s decision in Horton demonstrates the potential for the harmless error rule to validate electronic wills. The court’s ruling was based on clear and convincing evidence that Horton intended the electronic document to be his will. This decision aligns with the broader trend of recognizing electronic documents in various legal contexts, such as digital signatures and electronic records. The case also underscores the importance of clear statutory guidance to avoid inconsistent outcomes and ensure that testamentary intent is honored.
In the cases of Horton and Beck, courts grappled with the validity of non-traditional wills, ultimately arriving at divergent outcomes based on the nature of the testamentary documents and the court’s willingness to liberally construe the statute. These outcomes underscore the diversity among states in determining the validity of electronic and video wills. In its analysis, the Montana Supreme Court did not consider the harmless error rule, which allows a document to be treated as a valid will if there is clear and convincing evidence of the testator’s intent. The court focused on the statutory language and the requirement for a will to be a “document” or “writing,” ultimately concluding that a video recording does not meet these criteria.
The UEWA’s “harmless error” rule provides one potential path forward. The rule addresses the complexities of validating electronic wills that do not meet traditional execution formalities. Under the rule, courts may admit a will to probate if the proponent can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the document to serve as a will, even if it fails to comply with statutory requirements. The rule ensures that the testator’s intent is honored, reducing the risk of invalidating a will because of minor procedural errors. The harmless error rule is particularly significant in electronic wills, where traditional formalities such as physical signatures and witness presence may be challenging to fulfill.
Some jurisdictions are willing to adapt and recognize electronic documents as valid testamentary instruments, but others maintain traditional requirements. As technology advances, clear guidelines for electronic and video wills are increasingly necessary. As more people turn to electronic devices to conduct personal business, statutory guidance on the execution of electronic wills can streamline the process of validating those wills and reduce the potential for legal disputes.
