Succession of Hebert, 101 So. 3d 131

Gladys Knott Hebert died in 2003; she left two parcels of residential real estate to her grandson Shawn and great grandson Shayd via a March 24, 1999 statutory will; the will was signed by Hebert, witnessed by her children Willa and David, and notarized by August Dupuis.
The original signing included two witnesses (Willa and David) and a notary; the executor named in the will was Gladys's husband, who had predeceased her, and David, a witness, also predeceased her.
Kathleen Stelly (granddaughter) petitioned in 2003 to be administrator of the estate, asserting intestacy; Kathleen and Willa then occupied Shawn’s lot, while Shawn opposed Kathleen’s administration and attempted to probate a copy of the will.
In 2011, the original will was found in a closet; Shawn produced it for probate as Kathleen and Willa opposed; a contradictory hearing occurred and the trial court ultimately held the will valid in Shawn’s favor and replaced Kathleen with Shawn as administrator.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding the will complied with the statutory formalities and recognizing substantial rather than strict compliance with the attestation requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly found the will valid under La.R.S. 9:2442(B)(1)	Huval and Stelly contend the will failed formalities under (B)(1)	Shawn argues the will satisfied (B)(1)	Yes; the court held substantial compliance with (B)(1) and the will is valid.
Whether the trial court properly validated the witnesses/notary attestation under La.R.S. 9:2442(B)(2)	Appellants claim the attestation language was deficient	Appellee asserts the attestation was substantially similar to the statute	Yes; the attestation was substantially similar and valid despite split attestation forms.
Whether the testator's initials/signature and signing location were sufficient	Initials by testator beside dispositive provisions were insufficient	Court should follow liberal interpretation; initials suffice	Yes; initials next to dispositive provisions and signing at appropriate place meet requirements.
Whether the date requirement in the attestation clause was satisfied	Date in the witness clause was missing	Date appeared elsewhere and is incorporated; dating is not strictly required in the clause	Yes; the date was present or incorporated, satisfying substantial compliance.
Whether the trial court correctly replaced Kathleen Stelly with Shawn Hebert as administrator	Kathleen should be administrator; Shawn lacks standing	Trial court correctly appointed Shawn based on the will	Yes; the administrator replacement was affirmed.

Succession of Daigle, 601 So.2d 10 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992) (great weight given to trial findings in will contests)
Succession of Morgan, 242 So.2d 551 (La.1970) (statutory form of will and honoring later testamentary acts)
Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So.2d 366 (La.1987) (liberal approach to statutory will formalities; substantial compliance)
Succession of Squires, 640 So.2d 813 (La.App. 3 Cir.1994) (initials acceptable when testator signs dispositive provisions later)
Succession of Armstrong, 636 So.2d 1109 (La.App. 4 Cir.1994) (nonstandard signatures can satisfy formal requirements)