Self-proved wills

[chuckycheese]

I'm curious to know why any law firm would draw up a will (in a state that recognizes "self-proved wills")....and NOT have it notarized? It seems that authenticating a will could be a nightmare when it's not notarized (witnesses can be impossible to find for a variety of reasons).....and so very easy if it were notarized. Why would they ever consider not doing so?

I've only arrived at one possible explanation....and I don't like it. My thanks, in advance, to any attorney 'in the know'.

[Clair Bonner]

I'm curious to know why any law firm would draw up a will (in a state that recognizes "self-proved wills")....and NOT have it notarized? It seems that authenticating a will could be a nightmare when it's not notarized (witnesses can be impossible to find for a variety of reasons).....and so very easy if it were notarized. Why would they ever consider not doing so?

I've only arrived at one possible explanation....and I don't like it. My thanks, in advance, to any attorney 'in the know'.

Notarization has nothing to do with a "self-proving" Will.

For example, California statutory Wills are "self-proving;" that is, proper execution of the attestation clause by two or more competent witnesses satisfies the requirements and is thus sufficient proof of the Will for admission to probate.

It further means that when the witnesses sign and date a Declaration or Affidavit, rather than merely signing as witnesses, then you wouldn't have to go "chasing down" ghosts or shadows years from now for court. In other words, it wouldn't matter if the witnesses were still alive, or now dead, or whether they agreed to come to court to prove the existence of the Will. It's already done at the time of signing their affidavits or declarations.

If I were putting a Will together today, this would be the only way I'd do it.

[chuckycheese]

Thank you for your thoughts. One thing is for certain: The requirements for satisfying the self-proved "rule" vary from state to state. Much of what I've read about various states mentions that "the witnesses must sign in the presence of an officer authorized to administer oaths". This would seem to indicate that two witnesses signing in the attorney's office wouldn't suffice. The more I've read about it, the more ambiguous it seems!