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.”
"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."
[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."