In Re Estate of Bixby, No. 2 CA-CV 2024-0366 (App. Div. II, July 11, 2025) (J. O'Neil) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/CV20240366Opinion.pdf

“XO” AT THE END OF AN ALLEGED TESTAMENTARY NOTE DOES NOT MEET THE HOLIGRAPHIC WILL SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT

Decedent left behind two sticky notes before her death which Beth Levendis claims constituted a valid holographic will devising all of decedent's estate to Levendis. The first note read as follows:  “I'm sorry, I just don't have the tools for this. Beth gets everything. The second note stated: Also, sorry universe, thank you for the experience . . . . maybe XO.”  The trial court granted decedent's sisters' motion for summary in Levendis' petition for formal probate finding the sticky notes lacked a valid signature to create a binding holographic will.  Levendis appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

A writing, which along with surrounding circumstances, establishes testamentary intent will be enforced if the writing is in strict compliance with A.R.S. § 14-2502 (signed and witnessed by two parties) or A.R.S. § 14-2503 which allows for a valid holographic will, “whether or not witnessed, if the signature and the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator.” The sticky notes in question signed “XO” do not meet this requirement.  While “X” may, under appropriate circumstances be found to be a valid signature to support a holographic will, “XO” commonly is understood to be shorthand for “hugs and kisses” and no reasonable person under the circumstances of this case would interpret “XO” to represent decedent Jamie Leandra Bixby's signature.