Social Distancing Changes the Debate Over Electronic Wills
As the COVID-19 virus continues to spread through communities, the prospect of offering people electronic wills, remotely executed and virtually witnessed, has a whole new appeal.
April 09, 2020 at 01:28 PM
3 minute read
A person can manage nearly every aspect of their personal and financial affairs online. An individual can transact most affairs without any in-person meetings and without exchanging any physical documents, including filing taxes, opening bank accounts, and purchasing real estate.
California, like most other states, however, does not recognize electronic wills. Creating an enforceable will still requires the preparation and delivery of a physical document, the execution of that document in the presence of two witnesses, and the physical storage and safekeeping of the executed and witnessed original. California's Uniform Electronic Signature Law, which gives electronic contracts the same legal force as signed paper documents, excludes the creation and execution of wills, codicils and testamentary trusts.
Until recently, the debate over electronic wills has pitted the increased risk and insecurity that come with electronic transactions against the increased accessibility and affordability that technology provides. Only a handful of states—Nevada, Indiana, Arizona, and Florida—have enacted laws recognizing electronic wills. Bills recognizing electronic wills have been introduced in several states, including California, but those bills have stalled in committee or been withdrawn.
There are good reasons for state lawmakers' resistance to electronic wills. The strict requirements for execution of wills provide protection against fraud and undue influence and facilitate the orderly disposition of property upon death. There are readily identifiable eyewitnesses to confirm that the testator demonstrated sufficient capacity, acted voluntarily, and affirmatively consented to the terms of the will. The authenticity of the original document, if disputed, can be confirmed through close scrutiny of the "wet signature" on the original document. Moving to electronic wills, commentators and practitioners agree, opens the door to new forms of fraud and tampering and new opportunities for undue influence and coercion that may be difficult to detect and costly to litigate.
Proponents of electronic wills want to bring the low cost and convenience of electronic transactions to the world of estate planning. Allowing consumers to shop for estate planning services online and create and sign wills from the convenience of their homes makes estate planning more accessible and affordable. The risk of fraud and undue influence, the argument goes, is always present in estate planning transactions regardless of the medium used to execute the documents. Any increase in risk is offset by the many advantages technology provides. The COVID-19 pandemic adds a new and weighty argument in support of electronic wills: public health.
As the COVID-19 virus continues to spread through communities, the prospect of offering people electronic wills, remotely executed and virtually witnessed, has a whole new appeal. Most state and local governments have issued broad "shelter in place" orders, closed non-essential businesses, prohibited social gatherings, and encouraged "social-distancing." While the need for estate planning services is high, for many, putting a formal will in place requires in-person meetings and physical exchanges that expose the participants to infection and defeat the measures taken to slow the spread of the virus. These public health concerns will not disappear when COVID-19 is brought under control. Social distancing, electronic transactions, and virtual interactions will likely be encouraged, at least for the elderly and immunocompromised, for some time as a safeguard against a resurgence of COVID-19 or the spread of a new virus. If we have not reached the tipping point toward electronic wills, we will soon enough.
Kevin P. O'Brien is a senior associate on Hartog, Baer & Hand's litigation team. He can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
So You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Trending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250