Summary#
New York Senate Bill S10684 would amend the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, which sets rules for wills. It would say that the testator (the person making the will) need not be alive when the witnesses attest the testator’s signature, as long as the witnesses act within the 30-day period. The stated goal is to clarify that timing rule; the bill does not guarantee that a will is valid.
- At least two witnesses would still have to attest the testator’s signature within one 30-day period.
- The bill would expressly allow the witnesses to attest after the testator has died.
- It would create a rebuttable presumption that the 30-day requirement was met. This means the requirement is presumed to be met unless evidence shows otherwise.
- Witnesses would still have to sign their names and add their residence addresses at the end of the will at the testator’s request. A witness’s failure to add an address would still not affect the will’s validity.
- The bill is introduced and has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee. It is not law. The supplied material does not include the full current law, so I could not verify the bill’s comparison with current law beyond the text it would amend.
What it means for you#
- People making wills and their witnesses: The bill would allow witnesses to attest the testator’s signature after the testator has died, within the 30-day period. The two-witness requirement and other requirements in the amended paragraph would remain.
- People dealing with a will after the testator’s death: The new presumption could affect whether the 30-day requirement is treated as met. It would not, by itself, establish that every other requirement for a valid will was satisfied.
- The bill does not create a new service, application process, or review system.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text contains no cost estimate, appropriation, fee, or staffing requirement.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not say what event starts the 30-day period.
- It does not explain how witnesses can meet the unchanged requirement to sign at the testator’s request if they attest after the testator has died.
- It does not set out what evidence could overcome the new presumption.
- The supplied material does not explain whether the change would apply to wills made before the bill takes effect.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that a testator’s death should not by itself prevent witnesses from completing their attestations within the 30-day period.
- The bill keeps the two-witness and 30-day requirements while clarifying that the testator need not still be alive when witnesses attest.
- The rebuttable presumption could help address uncertainty about whether the time limit was met, while still allowing contrary evidence.
Case against#
- One concern is that the bill does not define when the 30-day period begins, leaving an important timing question unresolved.
- The bill keeps the requirement that witnesses sign at the testator’s request, but does not explain how that requirement works when witnesses attest after the testator’s death.
- The bill does not explain what evidence would rebut the presumption, so its practical effect is unclear.