The rules on wills are very exact. If the testator does not comply precisely, then the will is invalid. Suppose a man discovers that his daughter has broken virtually every law in this book – she has engaged in insider trading, price-fixing and fraud, to name a few. At his birthday party, the man says to the videographer, in front of 100 witnesses, “I have an appointment with my lawyer tomorrow but, in the meantime, you should know that I want all of my assets to go to the Home for Little Wanderers, the orphanage that raised me.” On his way home that night, he dies in a car accident. Under his will, his daughter inherits all. A court would undoubtedly enforce the will despite all the evidence about the man’s real wishes. Is that right? Courts are often called upon to make difficult decisions about facts. In the case of disputed wills, why not let the courts decide what the decedent really wanted?