Groat v. Sundberg
213 Md. App. 144
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2013Background
- Decedent Frank Haigas executed a will in 2006 leaving MicroLamda, LLC shares to Kristin Sundberg and Michael Prendergast; niece Melissa Haigas was appointed executrix.
- A one‑page document dated January 2010 (the "Document") purported to transfer stock to Irving (Irv) Groat for $10,000 and was signed by Haigas, Groat, and Melissa Haigas.
- Groat sought admission of the Document as a codicil; estate counsel refused and the Will was admitted to probate; Groat requested a hearing on the Document’s validity.
- At the Orphans’ Court hearing, testimony conflicted: Groat said Haigas directed witnesses to sign in his presence; Melissa testified she signed the Document but could not recall whether she signed in the same room or in Haigas’s presence.
- The Orphans’ Court found E.T. § 4‑102 witnessing requirements not proven (attestation/signing in testator’s presence) and refused to admit the Document as a codicil; the court’s judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Groat) | Defendant's Argument (Sundberg/Prendergast/Ms. Haigas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears burden to prove due execution? | Document is facially valid; Slack presumption should attach, shifting burden to challengers | Presumption attaches only after proponent makes prima facie showing (attestation clause or equivalent) | Proponent bears initial burden; no prima facie case made here, so burden remained with Groat |
| Is a witness’s failure to recall presence evidence against due execution? | Lack of memory should not defeat validity (Slack: mere inability to recall insufficient) | Where presumption never attached, witness’s inability to confirm presence is probative against due execution | Court properly relied on witness’s inability to recall because no presumption attached |
| Does signing "in the same house" satisfy "in the presence of the testator"? | Signing at testator’s direction while in same house should suffice; strict proximity unnecessary | Statute requires unobstructed line‑of‑vision; being merely in same house is insufficient | Held: statute requires ability to see (line‑of‑vision); same‑house alone insufficient |
| Did the Document show attestation (prima facie) without attestation clause? | Surrounding facts (handwriting, signatures, direction to sign) suffice under Slack | Document lacks attestation wording and no evidence Melissa attested in testator’s presence | Held: no attestation shown; Slack’s presumption did not attach because attestation not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. Truitt, 368 Md. 2, 791 A.2d 129 (Court of Appeals of Md.) (presumption of due execution may attach absent attestation clause if prima facie evidence shows testator’s signature and witnesses signed in his presence)
- Van Meter v. Van Meter, 183 Md. 614, 39 A.2d 752 (Md. 1944) (proponent bears initial burden to prove due execution by preponderance)
- McIntyre v. Saltysiak, 205 Md. 415, 109 A.2d 70 (Md. 1954) (attestation clause is prima facie evidence of facts recited; attestation is witnesses' act of seeing statutory formalities done)
- Brittingham v. Brittingham, 147 Md. 153, 127 A. 737 (Md. 1925) ("line‑of‑vision" test: witness must sign within unobstructed range of testator’s vision)