Legal information capsules| Holograph intestacy |
|
The plaintiff, who is executor of the estate of his uncle, made a motion to check two holographic codicil amending notaries will of the testator. In regard to Andrew and Gilles, they argue that the codicils are zero. They invoke the suddenness and lack of rational basis for concluding that it is unlikely that their uncle is the perpetrator and those they express his will for sure and unequivocal.
The Superior Court ruled that no one has seen the testator cross out and initial the codicil, but the circumstantial evidence shows that he did himself. Article 714 C.C.Q. does not require proof that a mark that the testator is commonly used. Therefore, they do not constitute a will and cannot represent certain and unequivocal intention to revoke a bequest in a will notarized. The wishes expressed by the testator in the codicils are ineffective. It is therefore necessary to reject the applicant's request. J.E. 2011-1956 |