Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 474.337 (2026)

Written will self-proved, how

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

474.337. Written will self-proved, how. — 1. A written will may at the time of its execution, or at any subsequent date, be made self-proved, by the acknowledgment thereof by the testator and the witnesses, each made before an officer authorized to administer oaths under the laws of this state, and evidenced by the officer's certificate, under official seal, attached or annexed to the will in form and content substantially as follows:

THE STATE OF ______
COUNTY OF ______
I, the undersigned, an officer authorized to administer oaths, certify that ______, the testator, and the witnesses, whose names are signed to the attached or foregoing instrument, having appeared together before me and having been first duly sworn, each then declared to me that the testator signed and executed the instrument as his last will, and that he had willingly signed or willingly directed another to sign for him, and that he executed it as his free and voluntary act for the purposes therein expressed; and that each of the witnesses, in the presence and hearing of the testator, signed the will as witness and that to the best of his knowledge the testator was at that time eighteen or more years of age, of sound mind, and under no constraint or undue influence.
In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal this ______ day of ______, 20______.
(Signed)	__________________________________________
(SEAL)	__________________________________________
	(Official capacity of officer)

2. An officer authorized to administer oaths under the laws of this state, who has no official seal, including a commissioner of deeds acting under section 486.130, and a judge advocate or other commissioned officer of the Armed Forces acting under Article 136 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (United States Code, Title 10, Section 936), whether or not on active duty, section 492.070, or an equivalent court rule, may, in lieu of affixing an official seal to his certificate, include in it a statement that he has no official seal and reciting the facts which establish his authority. Such a statement has the same effect as an official seal.

--------

(L. 1980 S.B. 637, A.L. 1981 S.B. 117, A.L. 1991 S.B. 358)

Effective 6-12-91

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2005 · leading case: Stroup v. Leipard, 981 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stroup v. Leipard, 981 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “1 provides that “[a] will which appears to have the required signatures and a certificate as provided in section 474.337, RSMo, showing that the requirements of execution under § 474.”

Rios v. Bridges, 710 S.W.2d 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “The petition for probate of will and for letters testamentary makes no reference to the manner of proof, and was not limited to the self-proving provisions of § 474.337 RSMo Cum.Supp.1984. Nor was there an advertisement under § 473.”

Hugenel v. Est. of Keller, 867 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “” It also had a “self-proving” clause, pursuant to § 474.337, 3 whereby each of the witnesses acknowledged to a notary public that “to the best of their knowledge the testator was at the time .”

Milum v. Marsh, 53 S.W.3d 234 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “On July 19, 1984 Lacey executed a will in the presence of two witnesses pursuant to the provisions of § 474.337, 1 the statute allowing for self-proving wills.”

Evans v. Stirewalt, 158 S.W.3d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “In Hugenel , the testator made a self-proving will per section 474.337, but he had previously been adjudged an insane person and there were later appointments of successor guardians for him as an incapacitated and disabled person.”

Kinder v. Brune, 754 S.W.2d 946 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “In due time appellants appealed, contending the probate division erred in rejecting the second will because (1) the subscription by the witnesses raised the presumption that the will was valid; (2) a later will revokes a prior one; (3) the later will was self-proving under §…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.