The topic of choice can be anything about divorce/Marriage dissolution.

Use a variety of primary and secondary research sources. Be sure to update your research. As a guideline, will need to cite at least one secondary source and five applicable primary authorities (statutes, cases, regulations).

Must explain the facts of at least two of the cases you cite and explain how they apply to your case.

Use the following grading criteria as your guide to determine if you are fulfilling the requirements of this project:

Memorandum format

Cases correctly cited, explained and applied

Statutes correctly cited, explained and applied

Correct grammar and punctuation

Secondary source explained and applied

IMPORTANT: When required, be sure to apply the law you cite to the facts of your case!

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED or ISSUE(S)

State the legal question or questions to be answered. Limit the number of issues to no more than three. You may be able to state it in one. Each question should be one sentence long.

BRIEF ANSWER(S)

Give a summary of your reasoning and conclusion in no more than four or five sentences. You will not be able to write short answer until you have completed your research and have completed the facts and discussion sections of the memorandum.

FACTS

Briefly state the facts underlying your research issue. Generally, no law will be cited in this section and it should only be one or two paragraphs.

DISCUSSION

This is the main part of your memorandum. Here is where you will state what law you looked at, and why. Break your reasoning into appropriate paragraphs, citing law correctly and making sure it is updated. This is an interoffice memorandum Example paper needing to look like this: |

QUESTION PRESEMNTED Is a handwritten will drafted on a partially pre-printed form that post-dates a lawyer-drafted will be considered a valid holographic will pursuant to ARS. 14-25037 BRIEF ANSWER Likely yes. Because the will in question is largely handwritten and the preprinted language will be considered in determining the context of the will, it is likely that the will be found to be a valid holographic will. EACTS Ouwr client is Jane Smith. Her father, Jim Smith, died on April 1, 2024. Approximately two years ago, Jim went to see a lawyer with his son, J.J., to have a will prepared. J.J. is in possession of the will and it was executed and witnessed before a notary. The will bequeaths half of the estate to Jane and half to J.J. About two weeks after Jim died, Jane was cleaning out his residence and discovered another will. The will is mostly handwritten, with only preprinted headings, language introducing each bequest, and a signature line. The will bequeaths everything to Jane. The will is dated February 1. 2024 and post-dates the will that is in J.J.'s possession by almost two years. DISCUSSION Many jurisdictions, including Arizona, have enacted statutes recognizing holographic wills as wvalid testamentary instruments. Jay M. Zitter, J.D, Annotation, Requirement that holographic will, or its material provisions, be entirely in testator's handwriting as affected by appearance of some printed or written matter not in testator's handwriting, 37 AL.R.4" 528 (originally published in 1985). The rationale often cited in support of the recognition of holographic wills is that \"it is difficult to forge a successful counterfeit of another's handwriting throughout an entire document, so that the requirement that the document, or at least its material provisions, be entirely in the testator's handwriting, affords protection against a forgery.\" Id. In Arizona, for a will to be valid, it generally must be: (1) in writing; (2) signed by the testator or in the testator's name by some other individual in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction; and (3) signed by at least two people, each of whom signed within a reasonable time after that person witnessed the signing of the will. AR.S. 14-2502. Under this statute, it appears that the will in J.J.'s possession is valid unless the will that Jane discovered takes precedence. As noted above, however, Arizona also recognizes the validity of holographic wills under limited circumstances. Under A.R.5. 14-2503, "[a] will that does not comply with 14-2502 is valid as a holographic will, whether or not witnessed, if the signature and the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator.\" The will that Jane discovered after her father's death is not witnessed, but it is signed and is largely handwritten. However, it does contain preprinted headings and introductory clauses such as l, [blank], being of sound mind, do hereby bequeath my . . . ." The question is whether those preprinted entries will prevent the will from being enforced. Interpreting the predecessor statute to ARS. 14-2503, the Arizona Supreme Court stated that "a will wholly written and signed by the testator is a good will. In re Morrison's Estate, 55 Ariz. 504, 510, 103 P.2d 669, 672 (1940). The section 14-2503 requirement that the material provisions be drawn in the testator's own handwriting requires that \"the handwritten portion clearly express a testamentary intent.\" Matter of Johnson's Estate, 129 Ariz. 307, 309, 630 P.2d 1039, 1041 (App. 1981). In In re Estate of Mulkins, 17 Anz.App. 179, 180, 496 P.2d 605, 606 (1972), the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed earlier Arizona decisions addressing holographic wills and determined that the \"important thing is that the testamentary part of the will be wholly written by the testator and of course signed by him." Id. (citing In re Morrison's Estate, 55 Ariz. at 510, 103 P.2d at 672). The preprinted words included in Jim's holographic will were the headings and the introductory language preceding each bequest. The validity of the will depends on whether the preprinted language is essential to the meaning of the handwritten words. Matter of Johnson's Estate, 129 Arnz. at 309-10, 630 P.2d at 1041-42. The problem we face here is that when the printed portion of Jim's holographic will is excluded, the remaining handwritten portion arguably does not reveal Jim's testamentary intent. See Matter of Estate of Muder, 156 Ariz. 326, 327, 751 P.2d 986, 987 (App. 1987), vacated, 159 Ariz. 173, 765 P.2d 997 (1988). The preprinted portion of Jim's will includes the language that he \"hereby bequeaths and then provides blank space for the testator to identify the bequeathed property. The Arizona Supreme Court, in reversing the Court of Appeals decision in Muder, held that \"a testator who uses a preprinted form, and in his own handwriting fills in the blanks by designating his beneficiaries and apportioning his estate among them and signs it, has created a valid holographic will." In re Estate of Muder, 159 Ariz. 173, 176, 765 P.2d 997, 1000 ({1988). In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the preprinted portion of the form to determine the context of the handwritten portion of the will. Id. With Jim's will, if the Court considers the preprinted portions of the will in determining testamentary intent, the will should be admitted to probate. However, J.J. will likely contend that the preprinted language, as the only testamentary language in the will, should disregarded and the will not admitted to probate or qualified as a holographic will. CONCLUSION There is a strong likelihood that the will found by Jane will be probated as a holographic will. J.J. will likely assert that the testamentary language in the will is preprinted and therefore cannot be considered. However, under Muder, the Court is likely to evaluate the will as a wholly written to determine the contexts. If s0, it is apparent that Jim intended to leave all of his property to Jane