An oral will, made in the last sickness, shall be valid in respect to personal property if reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent disinterested witnesses within ten days after the speaking of the testamentary words. The witnesses shall prove that the testator was of sound mind and memory, not under restraint, and that the testator called upon some person present at the time the testamentary words were spoken to bear testimony to the disposition as the testator's will.
No oral will shall be admitted to record unless it is offered for probate within three months after the death of the testator.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: Rogers v. Helmes, 432 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1982).
Rogers v. Helmes, 432 N.E.2d 186 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 2ד60 supports our conclusipn today: “In Section 2107.60, Revised Code, relating to nuncupative or oral wills, it is provided that such wills shall be valid in respect to personal estate, ‘if reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent disinterested witnesses within ten days…”
In re Est. of Shaffer (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6973, 159 N.E.3d 1190. “Looking to a witness’s general competence rather than any potential interest in the will is consistent with the notion that the specific contents of the will do not dictate whether the document constitutes a will that may be admitted to probate.”
In re Est. of Shaffer, 2019-Ohio-234. · cites it 2ד{¶ 37} Pursuant to R.C. 2107.60, a different process validates an oral will.”
In Re Est. of Mantalis, 671 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3דThe statute states: “An oral will, made in the last sickness, shall be valid in respect to personal estate if reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent disinterested witnesses within ten days after the speaking of the testamentary words.”
In Re Est. of Ike, 454 N.E.2d 577 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). “Such will shall be signed at the end by the party making it, or by some other person in such party’s presence and at his express direction, and be attested and subscribed in the presence of such party, by two or more competent witnesses, who saw the testator subscribe, or heard…”
In re Est. of Shaffer (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-6672, 171 N.E.3d 272. “Looking to a witness’s general competence rather than any potential interest in the will is consistent with the notion that the specific contents of the will do not dictate whether the document constitutes a will that may be admitted to probate.”
Gockel v. Eble, 648 N.E.2d 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “) R.C. 2107.60 states in relevant part as follows: "An oral will, made in the last sickness, shall be valid * * * if reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent disinterested witnesses within ten days after the speaking of-the testamentary words.”
Rogers v. Rogers, 2024-Ohio-5951. “24; and oral wills in R.C. 2107.60. Administrator’s Post-Trial Brief, p.”
Blankner v. Lathrop, 169 Ohio St. (N.S.) 229 (Ohio 1959). · cites it 2דIn Section 2107.60, Revised Code, relating to nuncupative or oral wills, it is provided that such wills shall be valid in respect to personal estate, “if reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent disinterested witnesses within ten days after the speaMng of the…”
Fazekas v. Gobozy, 150 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). “, provides for “competent witnesses”; whereas, in an oral will, §2107.60 R. C., that type of will must be “reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent disinterested witnesses * * (Emphasis ours.”
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.