In re Estate of Kuralt, 2000 MT 359, 303 Mont. 335, 15 P.3d 931 (Mont. 2000)
Estate of Kuralt is a leading case on holographic wills and codicils under the Uniform Probate Code (UPC) framework. The Montana Supreme Court confronted whether a widely publicized handwritten hospital letter from journalist Charles Kuralt—stating that his companion should "inherit the rest of the place in MT"—demonstrated sufficient testamentary intent to function as a codicil that altered his formal will.
Does a handwritten letter from a hospitalized testator, stating that his companion should "inherit the rest of the place in Montana" if deeds could not be completed, satisfy Montana's UPC-based requirements for a holographic codicil by demonstrating present testamentary intent to alter his prior will?
Under Montana's adoption of the Uniform Probate Code, a document may be admitted as a holographic will or codicil if (1) the signature and material portions are in the testator's handwriting and (2) the document reflects testamentary intent. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to establish testamentary intent and to resolve ambiguities, including identification of property and the testator's plan. Testamentary intent must be present (that the document is to operate to dispose of property at death), not merely an expression of intent to make a will in the future. A codicil modifies a prior valid will to the extent of any inconsistency.
Yes. The handwritten hospital letter was a valid holographic codicil. It was wholly in Kuralt's handwriting, signed by him, and—considering its language and the surrounding circumstances—manifested present testamentary intent to devise the remaining Montana property to Patricia Shannon if the planned inter vivos deeds were not completed.
Estate of Kuralt is a seminal illustration of the UPC's flexible approach to will formalities. It shows how a handwritten letter can operate as a codicil when coupled with clear testamentary language and corroborating circumstances, and it underscores the broad admissibility of extrinsic evidence to establish intent and clarify property references in holographic instruments. For law students, the case clarifies the difference between a present testamentary act and a mere promise to execute a will in the future, and it demonstrates how a codicil can partially revoke or modify a prior formal will's dispositions. It also serves as a cautionary tale: informal end-of-life communications can have dispositive legal effect, for better or worse, and careful estate planning should avoid ambiguity when parallel inter vivos transfers are in motion.