Luker v. Youngmeyer, 36 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2000, no pet.).


Testatrix executed a valid will in 1989. After her death, Caregiver attempted to probate a holographic document as a subsequent will. Both the trial and appellate courts rejected this document because Testatrix did not sign the document. Prob. Code § 60. The only place Testatrix’s name appeared on the document was in a reference to a trust she had previously created. Texas courts are very liberal as to what constitutes a signature. However, Testatrix’s use of her name when referring to an inter vivos trust was not enough to constitute a signature intended to express her approval of the dispositive provisions of the holographic instrument.

Moral: Clients should be encouraged to consult with an attorney when they desire changes to their wills to make certain all formalities are satisfied.