Succession of Holbrook, 144 So. 3d 845

Testator James J. Holbrook, Sr. executed a notarial will purportedly on April 8, 2009; he died July 4, 2010.
The will was probated and the widow, Llevonne Holbrook, appointed executrix; daughter Dianne Carlucci later sued to set aside the will.
Carlucci moved for summary judgment arguing the attestation clause lacked a complete date (missing the day) and thus the notarial testament failed La. Civ. Code art. 1577.
Widow conceded the attestation clause omitted the day but showed the full date “April 8, 2009” appears on every page and in the will’s opening paragraph; affidavits of the notary and a witness asserted the will was executed April 8, 2009.
District court and court of appeal invalidated the will; the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed de novo and addressed whether the incomplete date in the attestation clause defeated the will when the full date appears elsewhere on the instrument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carlucci)	Defendant's Argument (Holbrook)	Held
Whether an attestation clause missing the day renders a notarial testament invalid under La. Civ. Code art. 1577	The attestation clause must itself contain a complete date; omission of the day means no date in the clause so the will is invalid	The testament is properly dated elsewhere (each page and the first paragraph); the attestation clause substantially complies and extrinsic proof resolves any ambiguity	Court: Will is valid—attestation clause substantially complies; full date elsewhere in the instrument plus affidavits and lack of fraud cure the defective clause
Whether substantial compliance doctrine permits upholding the will despite the defective attestation clause	Strict statutory language “shall be dated” requires a dated attestation clause	Statutory dating requirement need not be formalistically confined to the attestation clause; substantial compliance and purpose (preventing fraud) control	Court: Substantial compliance applies; form should not defeat testamentary intent absent fraud

Succession of Holloway, 531 So.2d 431 (La. 1988) (holding a month without a day is not a date when no complete date appears in the testament)
Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So.2d 366 (La. 1987) (courts should liberally construe statutory will formalities and uphold validity when in substantial compliance)
Succession of Morgan, 242 So.2d 551 (La. 1970) (attestation clause need only be substantially similar to statutory form and courts should examine whether clause evidences compliance)
Succession of Armstrong, 636 So.2d 1109 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994) (upheld will despite attestation clause lacking day where full date appeared elsewhere)
Succession of Hebert, 101 So.3d 131 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (split or imperfect attestations upheld where date appears in surrounding clauses and no fraud is shown)
Succession of Bel, 377 So.2d 1380 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1979) (attestation clause dated though dispositive portion was not; attestation dating can validate the will)
Succession of Songne, 664 So.2d 556 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (where pages bore differing dates, extrinsic evidence may resolve which date controls)