Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lind v. Muder

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 31, 1987No. 1 CA-CIV 9256Published

1DissentFidel, Judge

I concur in the majority’s decision that the will of Edward Frank Muder fails to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 14-2502 for acceptance as a formally executed will. I dissent from the majority’s decision that the will fails to qualify for holographic validity under A.R.S. § 14-2503.1

To explain my view, I want first to consider what this case is not:

1. It is not a case in which Mr. Muder took a blank, unlabeled, print-bare piece of paper, wrote on it “My wife, Retha F. Muder, all my earthly possessions,” signed it, and left it for the interpretation of a curious posterity.

2. Nor is it a case…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Matter of Estate of JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  3. In Re Estate of SchuhCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
  4. Succession of BurkeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Dean v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API