October 2024

Felicia Bey v. Karen Renee Leake, individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Joseph Holder Bey, C.A. No. 2023-0233-SEM (October 8, 2024)

          In this case, after a one-day trial—at which trial the Respondent surprisingly did not appear—the Magistrate issued a final report concluding that a purported will was not genuinely signed by the decedent and, thus, was invalid. In setting the stage for her findings, the Magistrate explained that,

The Purported Will includes an affidavit, which is similar to what would be expected under Title 12, Section 1305 of the Delaware Code, the statute for self-proved wills. A will that complies with such statute may be probated without the attesting witnesses appearing before the Register of Wills and carries with it a presumption “that the testator executed the will in their presence while appearing to be of sound mind and free from duress.” But that presumption can be overcome with “proof of fraud or forgery affecting the . . . affidavit[.]” (citations omitted).

          The Magistrate cited this standard while explaining, “I invoke this standard, notwithstanding that the Purported Will was purportedly executed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and without any better benchmark from the Parties.” 

          The basis for the Magistrate’s forgery conclusion was largely the testimony of Petitioner’s handwriting expert.  The Magistrate wrote, “[t]he Petitioner’s expert witness was eminently qualified, persuasive, and convincing; his analysis and comparisons were adequately explained and not persuasively undercut through cross-examination. His opinion not only calls into doubt the affidavit, but leaves me with a firm conviction that the Decedent’s signature thereon is not genuine.” And, the Magistrate also added that “[t]he direct evidence of the exemplary signatures supports that conclusion even to the lay eye.”

          While there was testimony from a claimed witness to the signing, the Magistrate found that that witness’s “recollection of the Purported Will and its signing was fuzzy, confusing, and difficult to credit.” The Magistrate also concluded that the testimony of that witness failed to “provide any plausible explanations for the noticeable discrepancies between the Decedent’s signature on the Purported Will and his other known signatures.”  Lastly, the purported will was seemingly notarized, but that notary was quite likely deceased at the time of the litigation and could not be located by the parties.