Philip Willett as Heir of Frances J. Vessels v. the Estate of Frances Vessels, 2020 CA 000272

Frances Vessells (decedent) died June 1, 2017; her husband John predeceased her in 2016; the couple had no children.
A 2015 printed form will was found, validly executed with witnesses, leaving the estate to John (who predeceased Frances) and naming no alternate beneficiaries or residuary clause.
Handwritten notebook pages in the decedent’s handwriting were also found: two ‘‘Residual Bequests’’ pages naming nine beneficiaries (the first signed at the top), a ‘‘Specific Bequests’’ page (signed at the top), and an unsigned ‘‘Things Barbara should know’’ page with funeral wishes.
The district court appointed an administrator but never ruled on testamentary validity; the administrator filed for declaratory relief in circuit court to determine heirs.
The Hickman Circuit Court treated the handwritten sheets as valid codicils to the lapsed printed will, directing 60% of the estate to the nine named beneficiaries and 40% to pass by intestacy.
Heirs at law appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the notebook pages were not legally subscribed (signed at end) and remanded for intestate probate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the printed form will controls despite beneficiary predeceasing testatrix	Willett/administrator: the form will was validly executed but lapsed because primary beneficiary predeceased without issue, leaving intestacy unless the handwritten pages operate as codicils	Heirs: form will lapsed; handwritten papers should not alter intestacy unless valid holographic will/codicil	Court: printed will was validly executed but lapsed; intestacy governs absent valid holographic codicil
Whether the handwritten pages constitute a valid holographic will or codicils despite signatures at top of pages	Willett/administrator: pages show testamentary intent and were signed by decedent (therefore operate as holographic will/codicils)	Heirs: signatures not subscribed at end; statutory requirement not satisfied so pages are invalid	Court: handwritten pages are not subscribed at the end as required by KRS 446.060 and controlling precedent; they are invalid as wills/codicils
Whether anti‑lapse statute saves the bequest to the predeceased spouse	Willett/administrator: (implicitly) some attempt to give effect to decedent’s intent via separate sheets	Heirs: anti‑lapse statute inapplicable because named beneficiary left no issue	Court: anti‑lapse statute does not apply (predeceased beneficiary left no issue); therefore lapsed bequest leads to intestacy

Teater v. Newman, 472 S.W.2d 696 (Ky. 1971) (requires testator’s signature be subscribed at end or close of writing to evidence completion of testamentary dispositions)
Lucas v. Brown, 219 S.W. 796 (Ky.) (signature at end indicates dispositions are complete)
Miller’s Ex’r v. Shannon, 299 S.W.2d 105 (Ky.) (signature on outside of envelope or other substitutes insufficient to satisfy subscription requirement)
Hall v. Edds, 305 S.W.2d 317 (Ky.) (evidence of testamentary intent outside proper subscription cannot cure statutory defect)
Bennett v. Ditto, 204 S.W.3d 145 (Ky. App. 2006) (clauses following signature may be dispositive and thus defeat a finding that signature was at end)
Big Sandy Co., L.P. v. EQT Gathering, LLC, 545 S.W.3d 842 (Ky. App. 2018) (standard of review for declaratory judgment findings of fact)
Baze v. Rees, 217 S.W.3d 207 (Ky. 2006) (standards for appellate review of findings and conclusions)