On her blog, Estateography, Alvi Aggarwal, summarizes Irving v. DiVito, in which the Virginia Supreme Court determined the circuit court did not err in refusing to admit to probate a writing offered as a holographic codicil.
Ms. Aggarwal’s summary of Irving v. DiVito begins as follows:
The writing at issue in Irving is clear about the intended dispositive outcome—to disinherit someone. But the question at the core of this case is whether the testator intended the writing to have testamentary effect, i.e., whether it is authentic. The circuit and Virginia Supreme courts determined the writing was not intended as a codicil.
Posted by Lewis J. Saret, Co-General Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal.