Brittingham v. Brittingham

3 Citing cases

  1. Groat v. Sundberg

    213 Md. App. 144 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013)   Cited 5 times
    In Groat, 213 Md. App. at 147, 73 A.3d 374, this Court held that a presumption of due execution did not attach to a typed, one-page document that had neither a formal attestation clause nor any other "witnessed by" verbiage.

    It is well established that, with regards to the “in the presence of the testator” requirement of E.T. § 4–102, “the subscription by such witnesses must be made within the unobstructed range of vision of the testator, although if he is able to see it, without any material change of position, the fact that he does or does not avail himself of the privilege is immaterial.” Brittingham v. Brittingham, 147 Md. 153, 160, 127 A. 737 (1925). This test is referred to the “line-of-vision” test, for which “[i]t is not necessary for the testator to have watched the witnesses sign, as long as the testator could have watched them sign.”

  2. Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio

    456 Md. 1 (Md. 2017)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming this Court and holding that the circuit court properly granted Peter's "estate's motion for summary judgment on all transmitted issues"

    "In the presence of the testator" means "within the unobstructed range of vision of the testator, although if he is able to see it, without any material change of position, the fact that he does or does not avail himself of the privilege is immaterial." Groat, 213 Md.App. at 161–62, 73 A.3d 374 (quoting Brittingham v. Brittingham, 147 Md. 153, 160, 127 A. 737 (1925) ). In other words, "[i]t is not necessary for the testator to have watched the witnesses sign, as long as the testator couldhave watched them sign."

  3. Estate of Castruccio v. Castruccio

    No. 623 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jul. 11, 2017)

    [i]t is well established that, with regards to the "in the presence of the testator" requirement of E.T. § 4-102, "the subscription by such witnesses must be made within the unobstructed range of vision of the testator, although if he is able to see it, without any material change of position, the fact that he does or does not avail himself of the privilege is immaterial." Brittingham v. Brittingham, 147 Md. 153, 160, 127 A. 737 (1925). This test is referred to the "line-of-vision" test, for which "[i]t is not necessary for the testator to have watched the witnesses sign, as long as the testator could have watched them sign."