Estate of Beach, 2022 ND 13

Decedent Skip Beach died July 8, 2020; his brother Clark Beach sought formal probate of a purported holographic will in September 2020.
The document read: “My Last Will and Testament Skip Beach I leave to Clark Beach Everything I own P.S. Bury me in Carlyle 4-8-04.”
At a November 2020 hearing the document was admitted into evidence and seven witnesses (mostly family) testified they believed the handwriting and signature were the decedent’s.
The district court found the signature was the decedent’s but concluded the material clause “Everything I own” was not in his handwriting — noting differences in ink, lighter appearance, slant, smaller type, and use of printed letters vs. mixed cursive/print.
The court discounted lay witness testimony because the witnesses were not handwriting experts and had never seen the document before the decedent’s death; it held Clark failed to prove the material portions were in the testator’s handwriting and denied formal probate.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, applying the clearly erroneous standard and deferring to the trial court’s credibility and factual determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the holographic will’s material portions are in the testator’s handwriting (holographic will validity)	Clark: lay witnesses testified the entire document, including “Everything I own,” is the decedent’s handwriting, satisfying statutory holographic requirements	Personal representatives: the clause differs in ink, slant, size, and letterform; it does not reflect testator’s handwriting and is therefore not a valid material portion	Court: signature is the decedent’s but the material clause is not in his handwriting; petition for probate denied and affirmation followed
Whether lay witness testimony / Rule 901 authentication was sufficient without a handwriting expert	Clark: authentication under N.D.R.Ev. 901 was satisfied by lay testimony; no expert required	Personal representatives: admissibility may be met, but weight and credibility are for the trier of fact and lay testimony here was weak	Court: admitted evidence but found weight/credibility insufficient to prove the material portion was in the testator’s hand; no error in requiring the trier of fact to find persuasive proof

Estate of Johnson, 863 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 2015) (Rule 52(a) and clearly erroneous standard for probate findings)
Estate of Wicklund, 812 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2012) (requirements for findings and conclusions in bench trials)
Estate of Blikre, 934 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 2019) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Estate of Clemetson, 812 N.W.2d 388 (N.D. 2012) (trier of fact need not accept undisputed testimony)
Estate of Wagner, 551 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 1996) (statutory requirements for due execution of a will)
Estate of Krueger, 529 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1995) (material portions of a holographic will must express donative intent)
R & D Amusement Corp. v. Christianson, 392 N.W.2d 385 (N.D. 1986) (authentication under Rule 901 is conditional relevance; weight is for the trier of fact)