The Melton Estate: A Lesson in Holographic Wills

With a $3 million estate hanging in the balance, a unique situation unfolded involving a handwritten will, disinheritance, and some complex legal rules. This dispute was between the state of Nevada, the deceased’s half-sister, and the deceased’s daughter. Each party had a stake in the case with those stakes changing over time. The highlights and twists of the case are broken down here as well as brief notes on the law applied in each element of this case.

This summary and overview are presented partially because the case is interesting and because it underscores the complications that arise when an estate is left without robust, clear estate planning documents.

The Holographic Will and the Issue of Disinheritance

The deceased (afterword called the testator) passed away in the early 2000s. He left behind two documents that could be considered last will and testaments. The first was a document created in 1975, witnessed by three people and then placed into a bank. This will divided the estate between his parents, his brother, some cousins, and a friend (Susie). The will also specifically disinherited his daughter, Palm. The second will was written in 1995 by hand on hotel stationary in the form of a letter.

This document sought to disinherit all his heirs and leave everything to Alberta “Susie” Kelleher. In simpler terms, he didn’t want any of his family to inherit his estate. Sadly, Susie Kelleher died prior to the deceased’s own passing.

The court was left to grapple with four difficult questions: was the 1995 document legally a will, did all of the clauses count, did the 1995 document completely revoke the 1975 will, and who ultimately would receive what, if anything?

Nevada’s Statute Complicates the Issues

Typically, under common law (the law established by court decisions over time), you can’t just disinherit everyone without directing where your estate should go instead.

The district court, which first looked at this case, agreed with this view. They ruled that the handwritten will was valid but couldn’t enforce the disinheritance. As a result, they decided to give the entire estate to Palm, the daughter, as if there was no will at all. This is known as intestate succession – basically, the default rules for distributing someone’s estate when there’s no valid will.

However, there’s a twist. Nevada has a specific law (NRS 132.370) that changes a plain reading of the common law. This law says that a will can include a statement that cuts out certain people or groups from inheriting anything. Because of this statute, the common practice of not enforcing a disinheritance clause doesn’t apply in Nevada.

On appeal, the court upheld that the 1995 will was valid but also the disinheritance clause was valid. The result was there was nobody for the estate to go to and it entered escheat.

Breaking Down the Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation

Dependent relative revocation is a legal term that means if someone revokes (cancels) a will based on a misunderstanding or a failed plan, the revocation might not count. The court looks at what the person likely wanted and tries to honor that. In this case, the district court thought this doctrine couldn’t apply in light of another Nevada law (NRS 133.130). This deals with what happens when someone has multiple wills. The court concluded that this statute doesn’t stop the doctrine from being used in Nevada. However, they also said that even if the doctrine did apply, it wouldn’t change the outcome in this specific case.

The two documents discussed the same estate and largely outlined the same core concepts: dispensation and not dispensation. The wills established who did get the estate and who specifically shouldn’t get the estate. This made the 1995 will a complete document replacing the 1975 will.

If the two documents had talked about completely different elements, such as a new piece of property that was not mentioned in the earlier will, it would be possible for the court to see the 1995 document as an addendum and not a full revocation.

What Does it Mean to Escheat to the State?

Escheat is the legal term for when someone’s property goes to the state because there are no heirs or enforceable will. The court decided that since the testator disinherited everyone (those who died prior to the testator don’t count), and there were no heirs, his estate should go to the state. This decision is based on the understanding of Nevada law (NRS 134.120) which says that if someone leaves no spouse or family, the estate escheats.

Since the state of Nevada itself was one of the appellants, you might think this decision was convenient, but it is a matter of course for the state to be listed as an appellant in probate that could result in escheat.

You can read more about the extensive play by play of the statutes and the rulings.

The Court’s Final Decision

In the end, the state supreme court reversed the initial decision of the district court. They found that the disinheritance clause in the testator’s will was enforceable under Nevada law. Since he disinherited all his heirs, the estate had to go to the state.

This case shows just how intricate and complicated inheritance law can be, especially with handwritten wills and disinheritance. It’s a reminder of the importance of clear estate planning and understanding how state laws can affect the distribution of an estate.

The estate planning attorneys at Clear Counsel Law Group understand that legal matters can be overwhelming. Our team has extensive experience in estate planning and probate law to help you avoid disputes and needless complications. We’re committed to providing personalized and compassionate guidance, ensuring your estate is distributed according to your wishes.