Specific handwritten sections were valid testamentary acts: court
In a recent estate dispute, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench has clarified the rules for interpreting holographic wills containing both handwritten and typed sections.
In Baldwin v Van Hout, 2024 ABKB 220, the court validated two handwritten documents as part of the last will and testament of Arla Baldwin, who passed away in 2021. The court delivered the decision, which examined several legal points surrounding the validity of handwritten (holographic) wills and testamentary intentions after a dispute among Baldwin's heirs about the estate's distribution.
Arla Baldwin left behind two notebooks from 2016 and 2020 containing handwritten instructions that her heirs contested. The court was tasked with determining whether these writings constituted valid wills and the legal implications of their contents.
The court found the 2016 document fully compliant with Alberta's Wills and Succession Act, confirming it as Baldwin's valid last will. It was properly signed in the presence of two witnesses, fulfilling all formal requirements of a legally binding testament. The document detailed Baldwin's wishes regarding her assets, including land parcels and personal properties, stipulating fair market values and family inheritances.
In contrast, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench noted that the 2020 document presented more complexity. It lacked witness signatures and contained entries not entirely in Baldwin's handwriting, raising questions about its validity as a holographic will. The court decided it did not fulfill the requirements to serve as a formal will. However, the court recognized that certain sections within this document, specifically handwritten and signed by Baldwin, were valid testamentary acts. These entries included specific bequests of ten acres of land each to Claire Van Hout and Robin Baldwin, which did not conflict with the 2016 will's provisions.
Furthermore, the court addressed Aaron Baldwin's claim regarding an option to purchase specific land parcels detailed in the 2016 will. The court clarified the terms under which such options could be exercised, emphasizing the need to adhere to the deceased's intention to keep the land within the family. It detailed the circumstances under which these options should be considered valid.
