STRICT FORMALISM OF WILLS OR SOVEREIGNTY OF TESTAMENTARY INTENT: WHICH SHOULD PREVAIL?
Abstract
The paper examines the tension between strict formalism and testamentary intent in the law of wills. Traditionally wills are strictly formal acts (forms ad solemnitatem): any deviation, even minor, renders the will invalid and triggers intestacy. Against this backdrop, Anglo-American theory and practice have advanced flexible approaches that prioritize testamentary intent over strict compliance, chiefly the harmless error doctrine and the dispensing power doctrine. These have influenced legislation and case law in common-law jurisdictions and spurred debate in continental European theory over whether priority should be given to strict formalism or to testamentary intent. The development of digital technologies further complicates the issue because electronic wills are not regulated, creating a real risk that such wills will be annulled despite the existence of clear testamentary intent. The paper cautions, however, against an overly liberal model, especially broad dispensing powers, which can erode the protective and evidentiary functions of form. Form still matters: it deters fraud, structures deliberation, and provides reliable proof. The author proposes a middle path: preserve essential formal elements that serve these functions, but allow courts, in favorem testamenti, to excuse minor defects when testamentary intent is proven. Such flexibility would better honor decedents’ last wishes without sacrificing core safeguards, and it would create doctrinal space to validate technology-assisted wills even before comprehensive legislation on electronic wills is enacted.
References
Alberta Law Reform Institute. (1999). Wills: Non-Compliance With Formlities. Преузето: 16.10.2025. https://www.alri.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cm008.pdf.
Антић, О., Балиновац, З. (1996). Коментар Закона о наслеђивању. Београд: Номос.
Bonfield, L. (1996). Reforming the Requirements for Due Execution of Wills: Some Guidance from the Past. Tulane Law Review. 6 Part A. 1893–1920.
Vaquer Aloy, A. (2016). La relajación de las solemnidades del testamento. Revista de Derecho Civil. 4. 9–34.
Видић-Трнинић, Ј. (2017). Усмено завештање у праву Србије и осталим савременим правима Европе. Зборник радова Правног факултета у Нишу. 76. 421–446.
Gavella, N., Belaj, V. (2008). Nasljedno pravo. Zagreb: Narodne novine.
Douglas Miller, C. (1991). Will Formality, Judicial Formalism, and Legislative Reform: An Examination of the Uniform Probate Code Harmless Error Rule and the Movement Toward Amorphism Part Two: Uniform Probate Code Sec. 2-503 and a Counterproposal. Florida Law Review. 43. 599–721.
Ђорђевић, А. (1903). Наследно право у Краљевини Србији. Београд.
Ђурђић-Милошевић, Т. (2021). Јавне завештајне форме у српском праву. У: Усклађивање правног система Србије са стандардима ЕУ, зборник радова. Крагујевац. 437–449.
Załucki, M. (2021). Wills Formalities versus Testator's Intention – Functional Model of Effective Testation for Informal Wills. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Załucki, M. (2020). Evidentiary Function of the Provisions on the Form of Wills in the Contemporary Succession Law. Is the Complete Abandonment of Formalism Possible?. Trusts & Trustees. 8–9. 814–825.
Zimmermann, R. (2012). Testamentsformen: „Willkür“ oder Ausdruck einer Rechtskultur? (Testamentary Form Requirements: Arbitrary or Expression of a Legal Culture?). Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law (RabelsZ). 3. 471–508.
Kasirer, N. (1997–1998). From Written Record to Memory in the Law of Wills. Ottawa Law Review. 1. 39–61.
Kačer, H. (2007). Neka (prijeporna) pitanja hrvatskog oporučnog prava. Liber Amicorum Nikola Gavella, Građansko pravo u razvoju, Zbornik radova u čast 70. rođendana profesora emeritusa Nikole Gavelle. Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Zagreb.
Klasiček, D. (2019). 21st Century Wills. Pravni vjesnik. 2. 29–48.
Klasiček, D. (2016). Wills in the digital era. Informatologia. 1–2. 31–40.
Крстић, Н., Видић, Ј. (2021). О неким спорним питањима пуноважности писменог завештања пред сведоцима у домаћој судској пракси. Зборник радова Правног факултета у Нишу. 93. 79–97.
Langbein, J. (1987). Excusing Harmless Errors in the Execution of Wills: A Report on Australia’s Tranquil Revolution in Probate Law. Columbia Law Review. 1. 1–54.
Langbein, J. (1975). Substantial Compliance with the Wills Act. Harward Law Review. 3. 489–531.
Lester, S. (2007). Admitting Defective Wills to Probate, Twenty Years Later: New Evidence for the Adoption of the Harmless Error Rule. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal. 3. 577–606.
Maine, H. S. (1883). Early Law and Custom. London: Oxford University Press.
Марковић, С. (1972). Форме тестамента de lege lata и de lege ferenda. Зборник радова Правног факултета у Нишу. 11. 101–114.
Перић, Ж. (1923). Специјални део грађанског права, IV Наследно право. Београд.
Orth, Ј. V. (2008). Wills Act Formalities: How Much Compliance Is Enough?. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal. 1. 73–81.
Rzewuski, М. (2013). Formalisation of the Testament in the Light of the Favor Testamenti Principle. Miľníky Práva v Stredoeurópskom Priestore. 978–984.
Scalise Jr, R. J. (2011). Testamentary Formalities in the United States of America. In: Reid, K., de Waal, M., Zimmermann, R. (Eds.). Testamentary Formalities, Comparative Succession Law. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. 357–380.
Uzcategui, J. (2015). Application of the Harmless Error Doctrine in California and Beyond. California Trusts & Estates Quarterly. 1. 1–7.
Holmes, G. (2014). Testamentary Formalism in Louisiana: Curing Notarial Will Defects Through a Likelihood-of-Fraud Analysis. Louisiana Law Review. 75. 511–541.
Horton, D. (2017). Tomorrow’s Inheritance: The Frontiers of Estate Planning Formalism. Boston College Law Review. 2. 539–598.
Wendel, P. T. (2017). Wills Act Compliance and the Harmless Error Approach. Oregon Law Review. 337–396.
Woody. C. (2024). When Helping Hurts: Issues with Texas' New Statutory Fill-In-The-Blank Wills. 1–38. Преузето: 20.10.2025. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =4692947.
Прописи
Закон о наслеђивању Републике Србије. Службени гласник РС. Бр. 46/95, 101/03 – одлука УСРС и 6/15.
Zakon o nasljeđivanju Hrvatske. Narodne novine. Бр. 48/03, 163/03, 35/05, 127/13, 33/15 и 14/19.
Судска пракса
Grosert, [1985] 1 QR 513.
Estate of Melanie P. Berger, 91 Cal.App.5th 1293 (2023).
In re Estate of Ehrlich, [2012] 427 N.J. Superior Court 64.
In re Estate of Javier Castro, 2013 ES00140 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Lorain County, Probate Division).
In re Estate of Horton, 325 Mich. App. 325, 925 N.W.2d 207 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
In re Will of Ranney, 589 A2d 1339 (New Jersey, 1991).
In the Estate of Graham, [1978] 20 S.A.
Johnston, [1985] 1 QR 516.
Mellino v Wnuk [2013] QSC 336.
Nichol v Nichol & Anor, [2017] QSC 220.
Пресуда Апелационог суда у Крагујевцу, Гж. 3227/2011 од 13. 06. 2012. (Билтен Апелационог суда у Крагујевцу. (2013). Крагујевац. 1.).
Пресуда Апелационог суда у Нишу, 29 Гж. 1194/2016 од 24. 05. 2016. (Билтен Апелационог суда у Нишу. (2017). Ниш).
Пресуда Врховног суда Србије, Рев. 3085/2005 од 22. 02. 2006. (Paragraf Lex).
Пресуда Врховног суда Србије, Рев. 2306/2008, од 09. 04. 2009. (Paragraf Lex).
Re Demowbray, [2018] QSC 2443.
Re Estate of Clayton, [1982] 31 S.A.
Re Estate of Wilden, [2015] SASC 9.
ROJ: STS 4755/2013, 20.03.2013.
SAP Girona, 17-03-2003, AC 2003, 756.
Succession of Guezuraga, 512 So. 2d 366 (La. 1987).
Yazbek v Yazbek, [2012] NSWSC 594.In re Kajut’s Will, [1981] 2 Pa. Fiduc. 2d 197, 204.