Tentative Ruling: Estate of James R Kotaska

Case Number

26PR00025

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 03/11/2026 - 09:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following is noted for the Court at the hearing:

Heirs Identified.  According to the allegations in the petition, and the first supplement filed on March 9, 2026, the following heirs have been identified:

1. William Kotaksa (jr.?) – Brother of decedent.
2. Barbara Kotaksa Gruber – Deceased sister of decedent.
3. Paul C. Gruber – Son of Barbara Kotaksa Gruber, nephew of decedent.

Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing (Form DE-121).  Notice must be given 15 days prior to hearing, served on all known heirs and devisees, as well as on the Personal Representative (if not the petitioner) and special notice requestors.  (Prob. Code, §§ 8100 & 8110.) Notice must be sent to the person, not the person’s representative. (§1220.)

The proof of service filed on January 22, 2026, was not fully executed, because the date of execution is missing that accompanies the signature of the person attesting to service.  Please submit a properly executed Proof of Service.

Waivers of Bond. Bond must be waived by all adult heirs at law. Petitioner must file bond waivers (Form DE-142) for all heirs or devisees named in a will.

There is no bond waiver on file for Paul C. Gruber nor William Kotaksa.

Disfavored Hybrid Will submitted for probate.  Decedent’s purported will is self-proving.  However, because the proffered will contains both typewritten and handwritten provisions, notations interlineations, and contains many provisions that were left blank, thus not indicated to be the testamentary intent of the Decedent, it is recommended the Court deny admission of the will to probate.

When a will is typewritten but contains handwritten interlineations, the Court is faced with determining whether the handwritten interlineations were meant by the testator to rely upon the typewritten portions of the document to form a single testamentary device, or whether the testator meant the handwritten interlineations to constitute a codicil to the typewritten provisions of the document to form two testamentary devices. (Estate of Sola (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 241, 246-47.)  If the handwritten portions of the document are meant to constitute a holographic codicil, the statutory provisions of 6111 must be met, and the Court must determine if those handwritten interlineations revoke the typewritten words within the document.  (Ibid. See also Estate of Nielson (1980) 105 Cal.App.3rd 796, 804.) 

However, “[w]here the handwriting in itself lacks testamentary intent and substance and has meaning only in relationship to the typewritten words it relates to, there is no complete testamentary document that can be deemed a holographic will.”  (Estate of Sola (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 241, 247.)  Thus, if the document was not executed in conformance with Probate Code section 6110 to be self-proving, the Court must receive sufficient evidence to satisfy the clear and convincing standard in Probate Code section 6110(c)(2), in order to admit the will as is, without discarding either the typewritten or handwritten portions.

In this case, the court should discard the entire will, because the typewritten portions of the will are wholly reliant on the handwritten portions, and vice versa. Hybrid, fill-in-the-blank wills are disfavored in this state, except for the statutory will that has been provided by our legislature.

A “hybrid” will (i.e. fill-in-the-blank will or typewritten will with handwritten interlineations) is not admissible to probate unless the handwritten portions of the will dispose of the estate on their own, without the need for reference to the typewritten portion of the will, other than mere organization issues.  (In re Goldsworthy's Estate (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 666, 672 [as to a fill-in-the-blank will].  See also Estate of Sola (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 241 and Estate of Phifer (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 813 [as to handwritten interlineations on a formerly executed typewritten will].)  California law only allows fill-in-the-blank wills in two instances: 1) The statutory form is used (Prob. Code, §§6220 et seq.); or 2) the handwritten portion of the will meets the standard of a holographic will without the need for reference to the printed portions (Estate of Black (1982) 30 Cal.3d 880, 888]). 

For a hybrid will to qualify as a valid holographic will, the handwritten portions must independently express the testator's dispositive intent. If the handwritten entries are merely names, dates, or property descriptions that have no testamentary meaning without the printed language, courts must find the printed matter was incorporated, and deny admission of the will to probate. (Estate of Phifer (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 813, 817 [“so long as the printed words were “not relevant to [the holograph's] substance or essential to its validity as a will or codicil.”]; Estate of Sola (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 241, 247 [“Where the handwriting in itself lacks testamentary intent and substance and has meaning only in relationship to the typewritten words it relates to, there is no complete testamentary document that can be deemed a holographic will.”].)  However, if the handwritten portions contain complete dispositive provisions that can stand on their own, with printed matter serving only as procedural or organizational framework, the will may be admissible. (Estate of Black (1982) 30 Cal.3d 880, 885.)

Therefore, the will submitted in this case should be discarded and the Court find the Decedent died intestate.

Nomination of Administrator.  Because the will is not recommended for admission to probate, Petitioner does not have priority of administration over William Kotaksa or Paul Gruber pursuant to Probate Code section 8461. Please submit a nomination from all those with equal or greater priority. A written declination must be filed by or on behalf of an individual who is entitled to priority for issuance of Letters of administration but does not desire to act, or evidence must be produced that the person with priority is not competent under Probate Code section 8402 or refuses to act. (Local Rule 1752(d)1.)