The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a testator in Kentucky. The question concerns the effect of a beneficiary’s death before the testator on the disposition of the trust property. In Kentucky, as in many jurisdictions, a gift to a beneficiary who predeceases the testator typically lapses, meaning the gift fails and passes according to the will’s residuary clause or intestacy laws. However, Kentucky’s anti-lapse statute, codified in KRS 394.410, modifies this rule. This statute provides that if a devisee (including a beneficiary of a trust created by will) who is a relative of the testator dies before the testator, leaving lineal descendants who survive the testator, the devisee’s descendants take the property in the same manner as the devisee would have if the devisee had survived the testator. In this case, the beneficiary, Beatrice, is the testator’s niece, making her a relative. Beatrice died before the testator, but she left surviving lineal descendants, her children, who are therefore the testator’s great-nieces and great-nephews. According to KRS 394.410, the gift to Beatrice does not lapse; instead, her surviving descendants will inherit the trust property. This is often referred to as a “substitutional gift” or “substitutionary legacy.” Therefore, the trust property will pass to Beatrice’s children.

In Kentucky, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. The will must also be attested by at least two competent witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. KRS 394.040 outlines these requirements for a valid attested will. A holographic will, which is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, does not require witnesses in Kentucky, provided it is proven by two witnesses that the signature and the material portions of the will are in the testator’s handwriting (KRS 394.050). In the scenario presented, the will was typed, not entirely in the testator’s handwriting, and therefore cannot qualify as a holographic will. It was signed by the testator but only witnessed by one person. This single witness fails to meet the statutory requirement of two witnesses for an attested will under KRS 394.040. Consequently, the will is invalid in Kentucky.

In Kentucky, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested by at least two credible witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. KRS 394.040 outlines these requirements for a valid attested will. A holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, does not require witnesses in Kentucky. However, the question specifies a written will signed by the testator and witnessed by two individuals, implying an attested will. The scenario states the will was properly executed according to Kentucky law, meaning it met the statutory requirements for an attested will. Therefore, the will is presumed valid. The issue of the witness being a beneficiary is addressed by KRS 394.080, which states that a will is not invalid because it is signed by a witness who is also a beneficiary. However, the gift to that witness is void unless there are at least two other disinterested witnesses. In this case, there are two witnesses, and one of them, Ms. Gable, is a beneficiary. Since there are no other witnesses, the gift to Ms. Gable would be void. The will itself, however, remains valid in its entirety regarding other beneficiaries and provisions. The question asks about the validity of the will and the specific bequest to Ms. Gable. The will is valid, but the bequest to Ms. Gable is void due to her being an interested witness and the lack of other disinterested witnesses.

Kentucky law, specifically KRS 394.070, addresses the revocation of wills by a subsequent writing. A will can be revoked by another will or by a codicil that revokes the former will or part of it. This revocation is effective only if the subsequent writing is executed with the same formalities as required for the execution of the original will. In this scenario, the holographic codicil, being entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is validly executed under Kentucky law for a holographic will. However, the question concerns the revocation of a previously validly executed, non-holographic will. KRS 394.070 requires that any instrument intended to revoke a prior will must be executed with the same formalities as the original will, unless the subsequent instrument is itself a validly executed holographic instrument. Since the original will was likely attested by witnesses (as is typical for non-holographic wills in Kentucky), the holographic codicil, while valid as a codicil to a holographic will or as a standalone holographic will, does not meet the witnessing requirements to revoke the prior attested will. Therefore, the codicil’s provisions revoking parts of the attested will are ineffective. The original will remains in full force and effect, including the devise to Bartholomew.

In Kentucky, a holographic will is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. KRS 394.040 specifies that a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting is valid without attestation by witnesses. This is a significant exception to the general rule requiring witnesses for a valid will. The key elements are that the entire document must be in the testator’s handwriting, and it must be signed. If any part of the will is printed or typed, or if it is not signed by the testator, it will likely fail as a holographic will and may be deemed invalid if it doesn’t meet the requirements for a witnessed will. The scenario describes a will that is entirely handwritten and signed by the testator, thus fulfilling the statutory requirements for a holographic will in Kentucky. Therefore, the will is considered valid.

In Kentucky, a testator must have testamentary capacity to execute a valid will. This means the testator must be of sound mind. Testamentary capacity is assessed at the time the will is executed. Sound mind, in this context, requires the testator to understand the nature and extent of their property, the natural objects of their bounty (i.e., who their beneficiaries are), and the disposition they are making of their property. It does not require the testator to be free from all eccentricities or to have perfect mental faculties, but rather to have a general understanding of these key elements. The presence of delusions can negate testamentary capacity if those delusions materially affect the disposition of the estate. For example, a delusion that a rightful heir has wronged the testator in a way that causes the testator to disinherit them, when in fact no such wrong occurred, would likely invalidate the will or at least the portion affected by the delusion. The law presumes a testator has capacity unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof typically rests on the party challenging the will. The concept of “undue influence” is distinct from capacity, focusing on whether the testator’s free will was overcome by another’s pressure, rather than the testator’s own mental state.

The scenario presents a situation involving a testamentary trust established by a Kentucky resident, Beatrice, for the benefit of her nephew, Arthur. The trust instrument specifies that Arthur is to receive income from the trust for his lifetime, and upon his death, the remaining corpus is to be distributed to his children. Arthur has two children, Clara and David. The question asks about the nature of the interest Clara and David hold in the trust property during Arthur’s lifetime. This involves understanding the concept of a vested remainder interest versus a contingent remainder interest under Kentucky law, which generally follows the Uniform Principal and Income Act (UPIA) and common law principles for trust administration. A remainder interest is vested if it is given to an ascertained person and is not subject to any condition precedent. In this case, Clara and David are ascertained persons (Arthur’s children), and their interest is subject to a condition subsequent (Arthur’s death), not a condition precedent. Therefore, their interest is considered vested. Specifically, under Kentucky law, if the beneficiaries are clearly identified and there is no condition that must be met before they can receive the property, the interest is vested. The fact that Arthur is still alive and receiving income does not negate the vested nature of the remainder interest held by his children. The trust corpus will pass to them at Arthur’s death, but their right to receive it is fixed and not dependent on any future event other than the natural termination of the prior estate (Arthur’s life estate). This vested nature has implications for the ability of Clara and David to potentially assign or transfer their interest, though such actions would be subject to the terms of the trust and the law governing remainders.

The scenario involves a testator in Kentucky who executed a will in 2018. In 2020, the testator made a codicil to this will. A codicil is a legal document that amends, rather than replaces, an existing will. It must be executed with the same formalities as a will. In Kentucky, a will or codicil must be signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and it must be attested to by at least two credible witnesses in the testator’s presence. KRS 394.225 governs the execution of wills and codicils. Since the codicil was properly executed, it effectively revokes the provisions of the 2018 will that are inconsistent with the codicil. However, the codicil does not revoke the entire 2018 will unless it explicitly states an intention to do so or republishes the will in its entirety. In this case, the codicil only modifies specific provisions regarding the distribution of personal property and the appointment of an executor. Therefore, the 2018 will remains valid in all respects except for those provisions that have been altered or superseded by the codicil. The codicil, by its nature, incorporates the existing will by reference, modifying it rather than invalidating it entirely.

In Kentucky, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is neither mentioned nor provided for in the will. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 394 addresses the rights of such heirs. Specifically, KRS 394.384(1) states that if a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, that child receives a share in the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. This share is typically a portion of the estate not devised to the surviving spouse or to a parent of the pretermitted child with whom the testator had a parent-child relationship. The statute aims to prevent accidental disinheritance due to the testator’s ignorance of the child’s existence at the time the will was made. The calculation of the share is based on what the child would have received under intestacy laws, considering the impact of any provisions for a surviving spouse. If the testator had a surviving spouse and no children were provided for in the will, the pretermitted child would receive a share of the estate not passing to the spouse. For instance, if the estate is \$500,000 and the surviving spouse is entitled to the first \$50,000 and one-half of the remainder under intestacy, the spouse receives \$50,000 + (\$500,000 – \$50,000)/2 = \$275,000. The remaining \$225,000 would then be divided among the pretermitted child and any other children who were not provided for. In this specific scenario, the pretermitted child would receive the entire remaining \$225,000.

The scenario involves a testator who created a will that was later altered by interlineation. In Kentucky, a will can be altered by a codicil, which must be executed with the same formalities as a will (i.e., signed by the testator and witnessed by two credible witnesses in the testator’s presence). An interlineation, which is a handwritten addition or alteration made between the lines of an existing document, can be considered a codicil if it is properly executed. However, if the interlineation is not executed with the same formalities as a will, it is generally considered ineffective to alter the will. KRS 394.080 addresses the revocation or alteration of wills, stating that no will or any part thereof can be revoked or altered otherwise than by a subsequent will, or by burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the will by the testator or by some person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, with the intent to revoke or alter the same. Interlineations made after the execution of the will, without proper attestation, are not considered valid alterations. Therefore, the interlineation in Bartholomew’s will, made after its execution and without the presence of two witnesses, would not be a valid amendment to the original will. The original provisions of the will, as it was validly executed, would remain in effect. The question tests the understanding of the proper execution requirements for amending a will in Kentucky, specifically distinguishing between valid codicils and ineffective interlineations. The concept of testamentary intent is also crucial, as the interlineation may reflect intent, but without proper execution, that intent cannot be legally effectuated through that specific alteration.

In Kentucky, a will contest action can be initiated by any interested party. An interested party is generally someone who has a direct financial interest in the estate, such as an heir or a beneficiary under a prior will. The grounds for contesting a will typically include lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, or improper execution. KRS 394.240 outlines the procedure for contesting a will, requiring the contest to be filed within a specified period after the will has been probated. The burden of proof generally rests with the contestant to demonstrate that the will is invalid. If a will is successfully contested, the court will typically uphold a prior valid will or, if none exists, the estate will pass by intestacy according to Kentucky law. The concept of “standing” is crucial; without a demonstrable interest in the estate, a party cannot bring a will contest. For instance, a mere creditor of the decedent, whose claim is not secured by estate assets, typically lacks standing to contest a will because their interest is not directly affected by the distribution of the estate’s assets. Similarly, a beneficiary in a will that has already been deemed invalid by a prior court order would also lack standing to contest a subsequent will if their interest is extinguished.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a Kentucky resident, Agnes, for her grandson, Bartholomew. Agnes’s will specifies that the trust income is to be paid to Bartholomew until he reaches the age of 25, at which point the principal is to be distributed. Bartholomew, currently 22, has a history of substance abuse and has demonstrated poor financial management. The trustee, First National Bank of Louisville, is concerned about potential misuse of the funds if distributed outright. Kentucky law, specifically KRS 386.810, governs the powers of trustees. This statute grants trustees the power to invest and reinvest trust assets, manage property, and make distributions. However, it also implies a duty to act prudently and in the best interest of the beneficiaries. Given Bartholomew’s demonstrated inability to manage funds responsibly, the trustee may consider exercising discretion, if granted by the trust instrument or implied by law, to withhold or delay outright distribution, or to distribute funds for specific purposes such as education, healthcare, or vocational training. The concept of a “spendthrift clause,” while not explicitly mentioned in the provided facts, is a common provision in trusts designed to protect trust assets from the beneficiary’s creditors and to control distributions when a beneficiary is deemed incapable of managing their own finances. Such a clause would empower the trustee to continue managing the funds or to make distributions in a controlled manner, even if the beneficiary demands outright possession. Without an explicit spendthrift clause, the trustee’s ability to withhold distribution would depend on the specific wording of the trust regarding discretionary powers and the interpretation of the trustee’s fiduciary duties under Kentucky law. However, the question asks about the *effect* of Bartholomew’s financial irresponsibility on the trust’s administration, implying a need for the trustee to act. The trustee’s primary duty is to preserve and manage the trust assets for the benefit of the beneficiary, which may involve exercising caution when a beneficiary exhibits a pattern of financial mismanagement. The trustee can seek court guidance if the trust terms are unclear or if there is significant doubt about how to proceed. The core principle here is the trustee’s duty of care and loyalty, balanced against the beneficiary’s rights. The trustee’s prudent judgment, informed by Bartholomew’s past behavior, would lead them to continue managing the assets rather than distributing the principal outright, especially if the trust instrument allows for such discretion or if a court would find such withholding to be in Bartholomew’s best interest under the circumstances. The question focuses on the *impact* of Bartholomew’s irresponsibility, which directly relates to the trustee’s decision-making process regarding distribution.

The core issue here revolves around the concept of advancements in Kentucky inheritance law, specifically concerning a testator’s intent when a beneficiary predeceases them. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) § 394.410 addresses the lapse of devises. Generally, if a devisee dies before the testator, the devise lapses and falls into the residue of the estate. However, KRS § 394.410 provides an exception: if the devisee is a relative of the testator and leaves lineal descendants, the devise passes to those lineal descendants as if the devisee had survived the testator. In this scenario, Bartholomew’s will bequeaths a specific tract of land to his nephew, Silas. Silas predeceases Bartholomew. Silas is Bartholomew’s nephew, making him a relative. Silas leaves a surviving child, Penelope. Therefore, under KRS § 394.410, the devise of the land to Silas does not lapse. Instead, it passes to Silas’s lineal descendant, Penelope, as if Silas had survived Bartholomew. This is often referred to as a “no-lapse” statute. The statute’s purpose is to prevent unintended intestacy and to ensure that the testator’s intended beneficiaries’ descendants are not disinherited due to premature death. The fact that Silas’s wife, Clara, is not a lineal descendant of Bartholomew means she has no claim to this specific devise under this statute. The residue of Bartholomew’s estate would be distributed according to the terms of his will or, if not specified, by the laws of intestacy.

Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 394 governs wills and related matters. The concept of a “holographic will” in Kentucky refers to a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. KRS 394.040 specifically addresses holographic wills, stating that such a will is valid if the signature and material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. It does not require attestation by witnesses. This distinguishes it from a “nuncupative will,” which is an oral will made in extremis and has very limited applicability in Kentucky, generally only for soldiers in active service or mariners at sea, and even then, its scope is narrow and typically requires subsequent reduction to writing. The scenario presented involves a testator who, facing an imminent medical procedure and unable to secure a notary, dictates his final wishes to his sister, who transcribes them. While the sister’s transcription captures the testator’s intent, the critical factor for validity as a holographic will under KRS 394.040 is that the material provisions must be in the testator’s own handwriting. Since the sister transcribed the wishes, the document itself is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting, and therefore, it does not meet the requirements of a holographic will. Furthermore, it does not meet the requirements for an attested will under KRS 394.040, which mandates that a will be signed by the testator and attested to by at least two witnesses in the testator’s presence. Therefore, the document is likely invalid as a formal will in Kentucky. The question tests the precise definition and requirements for a holographic will in Kentucky, emphasizing the handwriting requirement and contrasting it with the requirements for an attested will.

In Kentucky, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a testator’s will who is neither provided for nor expressly excluded from the will. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 394 addresses the rights of such heirs. Specifically, KRS 394.380 states that if a testator fails to provide in their will for a child born or adopted after the execution of the will, and such child is not provided for by any settlement or advancement, the child shall receive such share of the testator’s estate as they would have been entitled to if the testator had died intestate. This share is to be taken from the portions of the estate not devised to the surviving spouse. If the surviving spouse is also disinherited or the estate is insufficient to satisfy the pretermitted heir’s share after the spouse’s portion, the remaining beneficiaries of the will contribute proportionally. The key to determining if a child is pretermitted is whether they were in existence and unprovided for at the time the will was made, and whether the will indicates an intention to disinherit them. A general clause disinheriting “all my children” or “any heirs not named herein” might be sufficient to disinherit a subsequently born child, depending on the precise wording and the court’s interpretation of intent. However, simply failing to mention a child born after the will’s execution, without any indication of intent to disinherit, results in the child being treated as pretermitted. The distribution is calculated as if the testator died without a will (intestate), with the pretermitted child receiving their statutory share of the estate, typically one-third of the personal estate and one-seventh of the real estate, after the surviving spouse’s share is accounted for, or from other beneficiaries if the spouse’s share is insufficient or also disinherited.

In Kentucky, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is not provided for in that will. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 394 governs wills. Specifically, KRS 394.382 addresses the rights of pretermitted heirs. If a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will, that child is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. This share is typically the same proportion of the estate that the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. The statute provides exceptions, however. A pretermitted heir will not receive a share if it can be shown that the omission was intentional and that this intention appears from the will itself. For instance, a statement in the will explicitly disinheriting after-born children or making a specific provision for them that is not a mere token amount would negate their pretermitted status. In the absence of such clear intent expressed within the will, the statute presumes the omission was accidental, and the child takes their intestate share. This share is calculated based on the number of surviving children and the surviving spouse, if any. For example, if the testator had one child born after the will and a surviving spouse, the child would generally receive one-third of the estate and the spouse two-thirds if the testator died intestate. The statute aims to prevent accidental disinheritance of a testator’s natural or adopted offspring due to oversight.

The core issue in this scenario revolves around the interpretation of a testamentary gift and the application of Kentucky’s abatement statutes. When a testator’s estate is insufficient to satisfy all bequests, the law provides a hierarchy for reducing or eliminating gifts to ensure that preferred bequests are honored as much as possible. In Kentucky, KRS 394.510 outlines the order of abatement. Specific bequests of tangible personal property are generally abated after general bequests of money and before residuary gifts. A specific bequest is a gift of a particular item or sum of money that can be identified and distinguished from all other property in the estate. A general bequest is a gift that can be satisfied out of the general assets of the estate without being tied to a specific item. The bequest of the antique grandfather clock is a specific bequest of tangible personal property. The bequest of $10,000 to the niece is a general bequest. The residuary estate is what remains after all specific and general bequests, debts, expenses, and taxes have been paid. Therefore, in the event of an abatement, the residuary estate would be depleted first, followed by general bequests, and then specific bequests, with some statutory exceptions not applicable here. Since the estate is insufficient to cover all bequests, the general bequest to the niece would be reduced before the specific bequest of the clock.

In Kentucky, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested to by at least two credible witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. KRS 394.040 outlines these requirements. A holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, does not require attesting witnesses in Kentucky. However, the question specifies that the document was written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. This meets the definition of a holographic will in Kentucky, making it valid without witness attestation. The scenario describes a document entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. This is the sole criterion for a valid holographic will in Kentucky, as per KRS 394.040, which explicitly exempts holographic wills from the witness requirement. Therefore, the document is valid as a holographic will.

Kentucky law, specifically KRS 391.030, addresses the distribution of estates when a decedent dies intestate without a surviving spouse or descendants. In such a scenario, the estate passes to the decedent’s parents. If both parents are deceased, the estate is divided equally among the surviving descendants of the parents, per stirpes. If there are no surviving descendants of the parents, the estate then passes to the decedent’s grandparents. If a grandparent is deceased and has surviving descendants, those descendants take the share their deceased grandparent would have received. If there are no surviving grandparents or descendants of grandparents, the estate then passes to the next of kin of the decedent. In the case of a decedent dying intestate in Kentucky, without a spouse or issue, whose parents are both deceased, and one parent’s surviving sibling has also predeceased the decedent, leaving two children, and the other parent’s surviving sibling is alive, the estate is divided equally between the surviving sibling of one parent and the children of the deceased sibling of the other parent. This means one-half goes to the surviving sibling, and the other half is divided between the two children of the predeceased sibling. Therefore, each child of the predeceased sibling receives one-fourth of the estate.

The Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Kentucky, governs the administration and interpretation of trusts. Specifically, KRS 386B.0801 addresses the termination or modification of a trust. This statute provides that a trustee may proceed to administer a trust without court approval, but if the trustee has reasonable doubt regarding a matter concerning the trust, the trustee may petition the court for a declaratory judgment. This includes situations where the trustee is unsure about the interpretation of the trust instrument or the proper course of action. In Kentucky, a trustee’s fiduciary duty includes acting prudently and in the best interests of the beneficiaries. When faced with ambiguity in a trust document that could lead to potential disputes or mismanagement, seeking court guidance is a prudent and legally sound approach to ensure proper administration and avoid personal liability. The trustee’s ability to seek a declaratory judgment is a mechanism to resolve such uncertainties and fulfill their duties.

In Kentucky, the concept of “pretermitted heirs” is addressed by KRS 394.380. This statute outlines the rights of children born or adopted after the execution of a will. Specifically, if a testator fails to provide in their will for a child born or adopted after the will’s execution, and such child is not mentioned or provided for in the will, that child is entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate. This share is equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. The amount is calculated as if the estate were divided among the testator’s surviving spouse and all of their children, including the pretermitted heir. This ensures that children who were not contemplated at the time of will execution are not entirely disinherited. However, this protection does not extend to children born or adopted before the will’s execution, nor does it apply if the will explicitly states an intention to disinherit after-born or after-adopted children, or if the bulk of the estate was intentionally left to the child’s other parent. The calculation involves determining the intestate share of the pretermitted heir based on the total estate and the number of heirs. For instance, if a testator had a spouse and two children at the time of making a will, and then had a third child after the will was executed, and the will did not provide for this third child, the third child would receive one-third of the estate, assuming the spouse also receives a share as per Kentucky’s intestate succession laws.

The scenario involves the interpretation of a testamentary trust provision in Kentucky. The testator, Beatrice, established a trust for her nephew, Arthur, with the remainder to his children. The key issue is the distribution of income during Arthur’s lifetime. Beatrice’s will states, “The trustee shall pay to Arthur during his life all of the net income from the trust property, and may, in the trustee’s sole discretion, pay to Arthur any portion of the principal which the trustee deems necessary for his comfort, support, and maintenance.” This language clearly establishes a discretionary power for principal invasion for specific purposes. However, the question focuses on the distribution of net income. Kentucky law, specifically KRS 394.500, addresses the validity of trusts and the powers of trustees. KRS 386.800 to 386.872, the Uniform Trust Code, also governs trust administration in Kentucky. Under the Uniform Trust Code, unless the terms of the trust provide otherwise, a trustee must administer the trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries. The phrase “all of the net income” indicates a mandatory distribution of income to Arthur. The trustee’s discretion pertains only to principal invasion. Therefore, the trustee has no discretion regarding the distribution of net income; it must be paid to Arthur. The trustee cannot withhold net income to accumulate it or distribute it to Arthur’s children during Arthur’s lifetime, as that would violate the terms of the trust and the trustee’s duty to the current income beneficiary. The trust’s purpose for principal invasion is for Arthur’s specific needs, not as an alternative to mandatory income distribution.

The Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) provide specific rules regarding the revocation of wills. Generally, a will can be revoked by a subsequent will, by a writing executed with the same formalities as a will, or by burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will with the intent to revoke. In this scenario, Bartholomew’s act of crossing out specific clauses and writing “Void” in the margins of his 2015 will, without executing a new will or a codicil with the proper formalities, constitutes a physical act of cancellation with the intent to revoke those specific provisions. Under KRS 394.080, a will or any part thereof may be revoked by such physical act. The intent to revoke the specific bequests to his nephew and the antique clock is evident from the annotations. Therefore, the portions of the 2015 will that were physically altered by Bartholomew with the intent to revoke are considered revoked. The remainder of the 2015 will, which was not altered, remains valid. The 2010 will is only revived if the revocation of the 2015 will was total and the testator clearly intended to revive the earlier will, which is not the case here as only parts of the 2015 will were revoked.

The scenario involves a testator, Ms. Eleanor Vance, who executed a will in Kentucky. Subsequently, she purchased a parcel of land in Tennessee. The core legal issue is whether this after-acquired real property in Tennessee passes under her existing Kentucky will. In Kentucky, as in many other states, a will generally disposes of all property the testator owns at the time of their death, including property acquired after the execution of the will, unless the will explicitly indicates a contrary intent. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) § 394.070 states that a will shall be construed to speak and take effect as from the death of the testator, and shall convey all the real estate the testator owned at that time. This statute applies to property acquired after the will’s execution. The location of the property (Tennessee) does not alter the disposition under the Kentucky will, as long as the will is validly executed under Kentucky law and does not contain specific language limiting its scope to property owned at the time of execution. The will’s residuary clause is broad enough to encompass all remaining property. Therefore, the Tennessee land, acquired after the will’s execution, will pass according to the terms of Ms. Vance’s Kentucky will.

The question concerns the validity of a testamentary instrument under Kentucky law, specifically addressing the concept of holographic wills and the impact of non-holographic elements. A holographic will, in Kentucky, must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. If any portion of the will is not in the testator’s handwriting, it is generally invalid as a holographic will, unless it can be established as a valid attested will. In this scenario, the will is primarily handwritten by Elias Thorne, satisfying the holographic requirement for the core dispositive provisions. However, the inclusion of a pre-printed form, even if Elias Thorne signed it and filled in some blanks, introduces non-handwritten elements. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 394.040 addresses holographic wills, stating they must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting. The presence of a pre-printed form, which constitutes a material part of the document beyond mere incidental pre-printed lines or headings, generally invalidates the entire instrument as a holographic will. While a court might consider if the pre-printed form could be severed or if the document otherwise qualifies as an attested will (requiring witnesses), the question focuses on its validity *as a holographic will*. Therefore, the pre-printed form, even with a signature and some handwritten additions, prevents it from being a valid holographic will in its entirety. The law requires the *entire* instrument to be in the testator’s handwriting for it to be considered holographic.

In Kentucky, a will contest action must be initiated within a specific timeframe following the probate of the will. KRS 394.240 dictates that an appeal from the county court to the circuit court concerning the validity of a will must be filed within sixty days after the county court enters its order admitting the will to probate. This sixty-day period is a strict statutory limitation. Failure to file the appeal within this timeframe generally bars the contest. The rationale behind this short period is to promote the finality of probate proceedings and allow beneficiaries to proceed with the administration of the estate without undue delay. Therefore, for a will to be contested in Kentucky after probate has been granted by the county court, the challenge must be lodged with the circuit court within this sixty-day window.

In Kentucky, a testator can revoke a will by performing a physical act of destruction with the intent to revoke. This act must be done by the testator or by someone in the testator’s presence and by their direction. The intent to revoke is crucial; a mere accidental tearing or burning without the specific intent to cancel the will does not constitute a valid revocation. For instance, if Beatrice, while cleaning out old papers, inadvertently tears her will and then, realizing it’s her will, deliberately tears it further with the express purpose of revoking it, this would be a valid revocation by physical act. However, if the tearing was accidental and she intended to preserve the will, it would not be revoked. This principle aligns with Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 394, which governs wills. The statute emphasizes that revocation can occur through a written instrument or by burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will. The key is the concurrent presence of the physical act and the intent to revoke. A partial destruction that does not clearly indicate an intent to revoke the entire will might be problematic, but if the physical act is complete and the intent is clear, revocation is effective.

In Kentucky, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested to by at least two competent witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. KRS 394.040 outlines these requirements. The concept of “attestation” is crucial here, meaning the witnesses must observe the testator signing or acknowledging the signature. Furthermore, KRS 394.050 addresses holographic wills, which are entirely in the testator’s handwriting. However, even holographic wills, if they are not entirely in the testator’s handwriting, must meet the statutory attestation requirements to be valid. In the scenario presented, the will is partially handwritten by the testator but also contains typed portions. Since the typed portions are not a mere formality (like a pre-printed will form that the testator fills in), and the will is not entirely in the testator’s handwriting, it must be attested by two witnesses who sign in the testator’s presence. The fact that the witnesses signed in each other’s presence, but not necessarily in the testator’s presence, is a critical failure to meet the statutory attestation requirement. Therefore, the will is invalid.

Kentucky law, specifically KRS 394.070, addresses the validity of holographic wills. A holographic will is one that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting. For such a will to be valid in Kentucky, it must be entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. The presence of any printed or typed material, even if minor or incidental, can invalidate the entire document as a holographic will. In this scenario, while the bulk of the document is in Elara’s handwriting and it is signed, the inclusion of a pre-printed beneficiary designation form, even if filled out by hand, introduces non-handwritten elements. This pre-printed form, by its nature, is not part of the testator’s handwriting for the purpose of creating the holographic will itself. Therefore, the will fails the requirement that it be *entirely* in the testator’s handwriting. Kentucky does not recognize partial holographic wills or allow for the severance of printed portions from handwritten portions to validate a holographic will. The document would need to be executed with the formalities of a witnessed will (KRS 394.040) to be effective if it contains any non-holographic components.

Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 394 governs wills and their execution. A will is generally required to be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by at least two credible witnesses. KRS 394.040 addresses the execution of wills, stating that a will must be signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the testator must declare to the witnesses that the instrument is their will. The witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. KRS 394.050 provides for holographic wills, which are written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. These do not require witnesses. In this scenario, the document was not written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, nor was it signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses who then attested to it. The testator’s intent to make a will is clear, but the statutory requirements for a valid attested will or a holographic will were not met. Therefore, the document would likely be deemed invalid as a will in Kentucky.