9934 Precedential Processed

Succession of Hoyt

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed October 14, 1974 · 303 So. 2d 189

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 25, 1963 153 So. 2d 173; La., December 15, 1887 39 La. Ann. 1071

Cited by

Succession Of James Conway Liner, III (Parish of Ouachita) Original D Ecree Vac Ated; … La. 2021
In Re the Succession of Hendricks 28 So. 3d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Successions of Eddy 664 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
Succession of Squires 640 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Newsom v. Boothe 524 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Succession of Guezuraga 512 So. 2d 366 La. 1987
Succession of Guezura 503 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Land v. Succession of Newsom 193 So. 2d 411

Opinion text

303 So.2d 189 (1974) Succession of Homer Charles HOYT, Sr. No. 9934. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. October 14, 1974. Velma P. O'Neal, Hammond, for appellant. John D. Kopfler, Hammond, for appellees. Before SARTAIN, ELLIS and De la HOUSSAYE, JJ. ELLIS, Judge. Homer Hoyt died, leaving a will, in statutory form, dated October 30, 1973. It was offered for probate herein by Mrs. Lily May Hoyt, his widow, who was named executrix therein. Probate of the will was opposed by Homer Charles Hoyt, Jr., Jewel Herbert Hoyt, Edward Joseph Hoyt and Carrie Lee Hoyt Rester, children of Homer Hoyt. The matter was presented for decision by motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to which judgment was rendered declaring the will to be invalid, and dismissing the petition for probate thereof. From that judgment, Mrs. Lily May Hoyt has appealed. The will presented for probate consists of two pages. The signatures of the testator, two witnesses and the notary public appear on the second page. The testator did not sign the first page. R.S. 9:2442 provides, in part, as follows: "In addition to the methods provided in the Louisiana Civil Code, a will shall be valid if in writing (whether typewritten, printed, mimeographed, or written in any other manner), and signed by the testator in the presence of a notary public and two witnesses in the following manner: "(1) In the presence of the notary and both witnesses the testator shall signify to them that the instrument is his will and shall sign his name on each separate sheet of the instrument......" The testator failed to comply with the requirement that he sign his name on each separate sheet of the instrument. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent fraud by the substitution of one typewritten page for another after the execution of the will by the testator. The failure of the testator to sign each sheet is fatal to the validity of the will. Mrs. Hoyt's arguments to the contrary, which are based on foreign authority, are neither controlling nor persuasive. See Land v. Succession of Newsom, 193 So.2d 411 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1966). The judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant's cost. Affirmed.