In re Estate of Puranchand Dhalumal Hemlani [2008] GUSC 25; 2008 Guam 25 (31 December 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
PURANCHAND DHALUMAL HEMLANI,
AKA P.D. HEMLANI,
Deceased,

By

RADHI P. HEMLANI,
Petitioner-Appellee,

JACK P. HEMLANI,
Contestant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA06-010
Superior Court Case No.: PR0074-04

OPINION

Filed: December 31, 2008
Cite as: 2008 Guam 25

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 2, 2007
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Contestant-Appellant: Delia S. Lujan, Esq. Lujan Aguigui & Perez LLP Suite 300, DNA Bldg. 238 Archbishop Flores Street Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellee: Wilfred R. Mann, Esq. Berman, O’Connor & Mann Suite 503, Bank of Guam Bldg. 111 Chalan Santo Papa Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, Associate Justice; and RAMONA V. MANGLONA, Justice Pro Tempore.[1]

TORRES, J.:

[1] Contestant-Appellant Jack Hemlani appeals from a Superior Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which denied his will contest and ordered the admission to probate of the Last Will and Testament of his father, Puranchand Dhalumal Hemlani, aka P.D. Hemlani.

[2] On appeal, Jack argues that the will, dated December 20, 2003, was not executed in compliance with the statutory formalities required for witnessed wills set forth in 15 GCA § 201. More specifically, Jack argues that the will was not subscribed or acknowledged in compliance with section 201(c) because P.D. did not declare to the attesting witnesses that the instrument was his will, and was not executed in compliance with section 201(d) because P.D. never requested that the witnesses sign the will in P.D.’s presence. He further argues that the probate court erred by applying a presumption of due execution which has not been recognized by Guam law. Jack also asserts the probate court erred by applying a test of substantial compliance when the Guam statute should be construed to require strict compliance with statutory formalities for the execution of witnessed wills. Finally, Jack contends that the probate court erroneously considered evidence of P.D.’s execution of prior wills in determining whether the instant will was duly executed.

[3]