SUCCESSION OF HANNA v. << (2019)

Granted. Pursuant to this Court's ruling in Successions of Toney, 16-1534 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So.3d 397, we find the trial court correctly concluded the attestation clause in the subject testament materially deviated from the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1577(2) so as to render the testament invalid. Consequently, the ruling of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the trial court's judgment is hereby reinstated.

This case presents a close question as to whether the signatures on each page of the testament and the testament's closing attestation clause satisfy the requirement of being “substantially similar” to the formal requirements indicated in La. C.C. art. 1577(2). This is essentially a singular question of law, which distinguishes the instant case from the presentation of multiple issues in Successions of Toney, 16-1534, p. 1 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 397, 398-99 (analyzing a testament “where the first two pages of the testament were initialed rather than signed and where the testament contains no attestation clause which meets all of the requirements of La. Civ.Code art. 1577, nor any attestation by the notary beyond the general notarization.”). Even though there is essentially a single legal issue here, the concern I expressed in Successions of Toney about “elevat[ing] form over the substance of what [the testator] intended” may be occurring here as well. See Successions of Toney, 16-1534 at 1, 226 So. 3d at 409 (Weimer, J., dissenting). Accordingly, just as the appellate court wrestled with this case in a full opinion, I would grant and docket for this court to give equal consideration to the weighty issue of whether the testament met the standard the legislature has dictated for “substantially” complying with La. C.C. art. 1577(2). Thus, I respectfully dissent.

PER CURIAM

Weimer, J., dissents and assigns reasons.