storrez0724 wrote:Most of you seem to be forgetting that it states the father's best friend was the only witness to the subsequent will and codicil. Which would mean what, it would have to be invalid, on the basis of it failing strict formalities for a will or codicil in California or if it was performed in State X, one would discuss that it would be assumed that State X Will law does not create the power to execute a valid will with only one INTERESTED witness.
For the sake of simplicity, you would take what it told you in the question, that State X only required one witness for a valid will, however, that witness was interested and if using common sense, you would apply the same logic as CA will law that creates a presumption of undue influence if the interested witness is not accompanied by an uninterested witness. In this case, on the basis of State X law, that would have required the best friend of the father to have another witness observe the son creating the codicil. Maybe the son did have the power to create this.
HOWEVER, most of you are missing the bigger picture. The codicil was only witnessed by the person who was given the interest in the land, meaning that he was an interested witness and it's invalid if it was performed in CA, both for only having one witness and because of the presumption created by an interested witness. It would also fail as a holographic will or codicil because not all the material provisions were handwritten and we cannot assume that from the facts. If you stated the will or codicil was executed in State X, then you would have to make the assumption that State X would not allow for the creation of a valid will or codicil with only one interested witness. The only witness to that subsequent codicil was the father's best friend and he was interested and you would have to make a jump by stating that State X law, although it allows for the creation of a will or codicil with one witness, would not allow for that creation with only one INTERESTED witness, thus the codicil is invalid under either CA or State X law.
I did not see anything in the question that references Bill as the only witness. On the contrary it states that Sid signed the will and had it "properly witnessed" Therefore, I found the codicil to be valid. Perhaps in the heat of the moment you read this wrong?