Allographic Testament and Testament Conversion

The subject of this article is the question of will conversion, and in particular the conversion of an allographic will to an oral will in the light of case law. Though it may seem that this first The form of a will today is only a relic of the past, it is in practice still often used and causes much controversy.

Problems raised, even though years have passed 40. Last century, they're still up to date. As it turns out, the liberal interpretation of the rules is usually the only chance to "save" the last will of the heir, but as long as the courts are reasonable, the will of allographics will still be a safe form of estate regulation.

1. Conversion in the context of the will

The conversion is that, in the event of the annulment of a given legal act, it is assumed, in the absence of a contrary wish of the parties, that another legal act has been carried out which satisfies the condition of validity and fulfils an objective similar to that intended[1].

Mr Gandor pointed out that this institution has certain basic characteristics; it is always based on a specific provision, it must come from the power of law itself, and its result is clearly defined in the legal standard[2].

This is the conversion of strict sense; the conversion of largo sense includes as a substitute the same legal activity, which differs only in content or form. In contrast to the codes of some other countries, the Polish Code does not contain a clear standard, specifying exactly the form of conversion[3].

The view that this is not simply an interpretation of a statement of will, but a separate legal institution, not regulated by the provisions (explainable can only be subject to a valid legal act 4 ).

In principle, the reason for the annulment of a legal act should not be relevant, although it is clear that it will not include appearances or acts carried out by persons who do not have the capacity to act.

Nowhere has it been clearly stated what results from the transformation itself – whether by the law itself, by the interpretation of the law, on the basis of a court ruling, or on the basis of the will of the parties as a result of the interpretation of declarations of will.

It seems that this is due to a proper judicial decision, although it is merely of a declaratory nature.

In the case of the form of a will, one can only talk about the so-called conversion rather than the technical-legal conversion. It occurs in broad terms, as it is carried out in the same type of legal activity[5]. The conversion may concern the form of the legal act itself and its content.

In relation to the subject matter of this Article, this will in particular be relevant first case, but conversion of the contents of the will also requires a short discussion to clarify the difference. Act of 23 April 1964 Civil Code 6 ((c) provides for numerous cases of use.

The simplest example is to “change” a specific will order for others that will meet the condition of validity. This may be both the same type of arrangement (e.g. writing instead of writing) and another type (conversion of writing into calling to inheritance).

It is also about situations where the content of the last will itself will change, e.g. the reservation of a condition or a term, treated in certain circumstances as non-existent. In any case, the hypothetical consent of the heir to such modifications is important.

They cannot be made if the contents of the will indicate that its author would be against them. The basis for the will conversion is only a specific provision of the Act – e.g. Article 962(964) k.c.

Speaking of converting a will, we use this word in the sense of legal action, not document, which is due to the nature of this legal institution. Also in the most common situation with regard to the allographic will is the disposition of the heir rather than the protocol in which it was established.

This is particularly evident in the case of an oral will that occurs only in the sense of legal action. It may not be written down at all.

Furthermore, the legislature clearly states under Article 952(2) k.c. a letter stating the contents of the will, not the will, as in the case of a holographic will. This scripture is not a will-document, but merely a statement of knowledge of the content of the oral will.

As a result of conversion, the character of the letter containing the last will may change. This problem will not arise only in the event of conversion of one written will into a second written will. The court also indicated that the conversion concerns the will as a legal act[7].

2. Legal basis for the application of conversion

The most important problem around which there is a dispute over the admissibility of converting the form of a will is the question of the basis for its application. As mentioned, there is no general rule and we will not find it in the inheritance section. On the contrary, Article 958 k.c.

provides only for the annulment of a will drawn up in violation of the rules on form. It is not possible to identify the exceptional admissibility of drawing up an oral will in circumstances allowing the choice of the traveller's will, when it is impossible to maintain the latter form, with conversion.

As a kind of gateway, it is indicated Article 952(1) k.c. and treats the failure to observe a particular form of will as a condition preventing or significantly hindering the conduct of the form of ordinary will. Regardless of the approach to such a solution, it must be stressed that it was adopted by the case law.

Of course, conversion will be possible only if there is at least an alleged tester consent[8]. For known reasons, it is not a real question of the person concerned.

It is assumed that, by nature, the main purpose of the statement of last will is not to draft a will in a concrete but in any important form. It is not necessary to mention that the author agrees to the possible qualification of the will, which was intended to respond one from forms, as will in another form.

In Polish law, the will is the only act that governs mortis causa, so there is also a so-called codification clause that would guarantee, in the absence of a formal or material will, that it will be kept in force in the form of codocyl. It is unlikely that the intention of the testator is to make a will in a concrete form. This would have to come directly from the contents of the will, but such a possible will would have to be strictly respected; in that case, conversion would be unacceptable.

The conversion of ordinary wills to other ordinary wills is simple because it does not require any special circumstances or special legal basis to be fulfilled. A will is valid if it meets the statutory requirements for any form. Animus testandi deals with the statement of will itself, not a specific form.

According to Article 65 in conjunction with Article 948 k.c.

the will must be interpreted so as to ensure the fullest possible implementation of the will of the successionor, to the fullest extent possible, of its regulation; where it is possible to have different understandings of the will, it is necessary to adopt an interpretation which allows the successionor's regulation to remain in force and give them reasonable substance.[9].

The assessment of whether the testator has made a will declaration that is a will must be the result of an interpretation. Both the content of the statement and the wording used to express it and the circumstances in which that declaration is made can be demonstrated by the will to test[10].

As mentioned, conversion is due to the supposed will of the testator and only his express opposition expressed in the will can stop it. There are no contraindications that a notarial or allographic will be drawn up by a notary or person named respectively under Article 951(1) k.c., consider as its own holographic will[11].

The conversion of special wills is much more complicated.

3. Conversion of an allographic will to an oral will in the light of case law

The most common case of conversion is in practice the conversion of a defective allographic will into an oral will. This is due to the relatively complex form of the allographic will and the fact that official persons necessary to draw up it are often not sufficiently familiar with the regulations.

The reasons for not keeping this form can be divided into two groups. first it is a failure to comply with certain formalities resulting from the provisions by an official entitled to receive a declaration of will, the participation of which is necessary to draw up a will or, in practice, does not happen, the error of the protocol.

In the second There are cases in which a declaration of will has been made to a person performing some public function but not entitled to participate in the drawing up of an allographic will. In the case-law it was generally accepted that the conversion of the allographic to oral will is acceptable In the first 12 , and second case[13].

In the order of 12 January 2007 The Supreme Court found that in the event of failure to comply with the requirements provided for under Article 951 k.c., which renders the will in the form provided for in that provision invalid, the so-called conversion of the allographic will and its recognition as a valid oral will is allowed, i.e.

will envisaged under Article 952 k.c. This is only possible if all the conditions for the validity of the oral will are met[14]. If the reason for the annulment of the allographic will proved to be a lack of witnesses, it cannot be maintained in any other form.

3.1. Conversion of the allographic will under the decree on inheritance law

The conversion of the allographic will to the oral will occurred under the decree of 8 October 1946 of inheritance law (Journal of Laws of 1946, item 328; Further: p. inheritance; repealed decree 18 May 1954)[15]. Article 80 The decree on inheritance read: “section 1.

The heir may also draw up a will in such a way that two at the same time, the witnesses present shall give their oral wish to be informed either by a civil judge or by the mayor or by an official authorized by him or by a mayor.

That person shall record the will of the heir in the minutes stating the date of its drawing up and the minutes shall read the heir, making reference to it in the minutes. The minutes thus drawn up will then be signed by the heir, the person writing his will and witnesses.

If the successionr cannot or cannot sign, the person writing his will should state in the minutes why the successionr is not signed. section 2. Deaf or mute persons may not make a will as provided for in this Article."

The most common violation was the omission in the protocol from the oral will to mention his reading to the testator. second A popular mistake was to fail to comply with the obligation for the protocol to be recorded and read in person by an official authorised to accept a declaration of will.

Recording the will of the heir in the protocol by one of the persons listed under Article 80(1) the inheritance did not have to be self-handed, but it was unacceptable for such a person to play only a passive role as a witness, and the protocol was written, in the sense of deciding its content, who else[16].

Testament in Mode Article 80 d. o. was also invalid if the protocol was not read to the tester by an official who accepted the will of the tester, but by a person who, at the authority of that official, wrote the minutes[17].

In the judgment of 21 October 1961 The Supreme Court indicated that, in such a case, a court forced to declare an allographic will invalid should, on its own initiative, consider whether there were grounds for treating that will as an important special will within the meaning of Article 82 p. inheritance.

It should be assumed that, at the very beginning of the decree, not every official had the opportunity to get acquainted with it properly. This fact did not escape the attention of the courts.

According to the Supreme Court ruling of 5 June 1951 It was considered that there were conditions for drawing up a special will, there was no obstacle to the presence of the mayor of the municipality in drawing up the will, if he was not yet sufficiently familiar with the law and could not meet his duties.

In a situation when the will was written several months after the date of entry into force of the inheritance, the mayors could still not be sufficiently familiar with the way in which the wills were drawn up. Article 80 p. inheritance.

In the judgment of 5 June 1951 The Supreme Court considered that, doubtless, the intention of the legislature would not be met by an interpretation rejecting the possibility of the will being considered valid on the basis of Article 82 Pr. fall. only because theoretically the mayor could write a valid will from Article 80 d. d.

d., although in practice he was not yet well acquainted with the law and this task could not be met[18]. It is difficult to imagine a completely extreme situation in which an official declares that he does not know at all how to draw up an allographic will and refuses to participate.

However, it must be assumed that in such a case the Article 80 the inheritance will not be fulfilled because the potential testator could have gone to another official or chose another form of ordinary will (if possible).

Also during the decree, there was a problem of declaring the last will of the heir to the unauthorised person.

In the decision of the Provincial Court in Krakow with 23 August 1963 it was noted that the treatment of the allographic will drawn up before the person who was not entitled to it could have been treated on an equal footing with its inability and was admissible provided that the person did not lead the tester out of error.

In that case, it was indeed justified to Article 952(1) k.c. 19 . In the Supreme Court ruling of 26 November 1953 it was accepted that the inability of a mayor who was not duly aware of the law could be regarded as a special circumstance within the meaning of the law of succession[20].

It may well have been the failure to comply with the law of the Secretary of the National Council, a national council bureau officer 21 or other official persons to whom the succession has been addressed for the purpose of drawing up the ordinary will[22].

Currently there are not as many formal requirements as in the former Article 80 However, formal shortcomings still happen. It is therefore appropriate to assume that the jurisprudence of the decree is largely still valid, as the problem itself has not disappeared, and that the arguments of the courts are essentially the same.

3.2. „Error’

At first, let us consider a situation where the defect in the will is due to the fault of an official. It has rightly been pointed out that the difficulty of drawing up a common will cannot be limited to cases of inability or difficulty in recalling or reaching official persons authorized to receive a declaration of will.

The inability of such a person should be treated in the same way, since in both situations it leads to the same effect, and thus the absence of an important will[23]. Choice by the fallor of the form of ordinary will from Article 951 k.c. prevents him from acting two other forms of ordinary will (own-handed and form of notarial deed).

The choice of this form, which then, as a result of the failure of the competent official to comply with the rule of law, is invalid, deprives any ordinary form of will from being able to be retained.

According to the Supreme Court resolution of 22 March 1971, a clear causal link exists between the annulment of the will and the impossibility of maintaining its ordinary form. Thus, the admissibility of drawing up the oral will is fulfilled[24].

Admittedly, such a circumstance actually deprives the testator of the ability to draw up a valid will, since he is convinced that it already exists.

This is where the question arises whether it matters to the testator's awareness that the will is invalid. It is difficult to expect him to assess the qualifications of an official and, if necessary, to be responsible for addressing an incompetent person.

Nor does it seem right for him to take responsibility for other people’s mistakes because he is not required to know the rules. If he is convinced that any required formalities have been observed, it is not similar to that considered to be a special circumstance within the meaning of Article 952 k.c.

The situation is different when the heir was aware of the annulment of the will and was able to re-draft the ordinary will. However, there will be trouble showing this fact. It is wise to seek information in the protocol itself that the heir knew of the annulment of the will.

Statistics show 25 , that the most common part of drawing up an invalid allographic will is the mayor. However, it should not matter who committed negligence because there were no and no perfect officials.

It is also logical that the failure of each of the testator’s companions to draw up a will should be treated the same as it was given that function. Can not open message one they require more knowledge and care than others.

The same also applies to the protocolant, who no longer needs to be the same as the official person receiving the testator's will statement. His error should also open the way for conversion. It may happen that the protocolant e.g. will forget about placing the date, which is a necessary element.

Similarly, the witness is not entitled to this role. The official shall verify his or her data and correct any deficiencies of all test participants.

To the official of that person under Article 951(1) k.c. you should not only accept a declaration of will, but also a specific control of the actions of the persons involved in drawing up the will, including the testator himself[26].

If possible, the official should give instructions on how to properly formulate the contents of the will It may happen that he will knowingly or unconsciously mislead the fallor and it will be revealed that the will of allographical will will will be invalid due to a defect in the declaration of will with Article 945 k.c.

Consider the following case: the testator wishes to draw up an allographic will of a certain content, but is instructed by an official that for some reasons it will be invalid because, for example, it opposes the rules on the inheritance of agricultural holdings. The tester shall adopt the council and decide on the other content which is included in the protocol. It is clear what was the will of the testator, and that if it were not for the misconception of the official, the will would have been different.

In the same case, the Supreme Court held that if the appeal of the will occurs in such a way that the successionr draws up a new will, the appeal first The will is only effective if the new will is valid.

In particular, if the heir declared his will under conditions justifying the acceptance of this statement as an oral will and subsequently, under the influence of confusion, he has drawn up an allographic will, which is by the power of Article 945(1)(2) k.c. void, that's him.

second, The invalid will, as having no legal effect, does not render it ineffective first statements of will of the heir. first a declaration of will of the heir should be regarded as legally effective as a will if it is expressed in the form provided for by the law which in the case in question was admissible[27].

3.3. Person not entitled to accept a declaration of will

second the reason for the annulment of the allographic will, in addition to the failure to comply with the formal requirements at the time of the declaration of will, is the making of a will against the person not entitled to it. According to the case-law, the facts of the case may justify the adoption that a special circumstance within the meaning of Article 952(1) k.c., justifying treatment of a statement of last will made by the heir in violation of the applicable provision of law, as an oral will, is to submit it to an unauthorised person[28].

This issue raised doubts about the critical assessment of the doctrine of allowing the conversion of an allographic will in general invalid because of the fault of an official, even if mentioned under Article 951(1) k.c. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court even decided to extend the scope of the "special circumstances".

It should be agreed that conversion of an invalid legal act is not limited to facts in which a particular legal act is invalid due to lack of form, which confirms the authorisation of the conversion of a defective will due to a breach Article 942 k.c.

It has been accepted that the inheritance's error, which declares its last will, i.e. the wrong idea of the heir of the actual state of affairs, may concern both the ability of an officer authorized to cooperate in the drawing up of an allographic will and the authority to cooperate.

In the order of the Supreme Court of 13 February 1997 it was pointed out that it was necessary to distinguish between the facts in which there was a mistaken idea of the heir that he had declared his last will towards an authorised officer from the facts in which he could not be accepted.

Distinction one facts from second is in the light of objective assessment possible, although the mistaken idea of the inheritancer lies within his psyche.

Like the failure of the law to comply with the law by an official, the wrong idea of the heir, that he declared his last will towards an officer authorized to cooperate in the drafting of an allographic will, and thus the misconception of the validity of that will, in fact invalid, gives the heir the confidence that another will is unnecessary.

Consequently, this constitutes a special circumstance within the meaning of Article 952(1) k.c., by which the conduct of the form of the ordinary will is no longer in question, is therefore impossible in the sense of that provision. Fulfilling the conditions of Article 952 k.c.

allows the declaration of the last will of the heir as an oral will provided for in that provision[29].

As the Supreme Court pointed out, the misconception of the testator must be at least to a minimum objectively justified. An analogy is imposed to the grounds for fear of imminent death from the oral will.

Here, too, it is important that the testator's feeling should be true and not be an excuse to use a particular form of will, in this case by conversion.

It has been pointed out in the caselaw that the treatment of an allographic will drawn up before a person who is not entitled to it may be treated on an equal footing with his or her inability and is admissible provided that he or she has not led the testator out of error. In this case, it is justified to Article 952(1) k.c.

In the order of 17 February 2004 The Supreme Court pointed out that not every case of the annulment of an allographic will can be regarded as a circumstance preventing or making it very difficult to maintain the ordinary form of the will. However, without denying in a general manner the admissibility of conversion, it should be borne in mind that it can only be done exceptionally, in circumstances which actually justify and enable it.

The reasons for the annulment of the allographic will can be very different, so it is necessary to distinguish between those which were triggered by an officer cooperating in the drawing up of the will from those which ‘imburse’ the testator itself; it is clear that only the reasons caused by the officer could justify the use of conversion[30].

The tester's fault will be evident if it turns out that he tried to draw up an allographic will, although the official warned him that he had no competence. It happens that the presence of any official person alone is to serve as an excuse for the recognition of an oral will.

It does not seem appropriate to allow a conversion of the allographic will, which the testator knew about already at the time of its preparation. It would be a simple trick to circumvent the law.[31].

Reasons for misconception of authorising a particular official to participate in the testing may be different, although usually due to ignorance of current regulations.

However, the situation should be distinguished when the tester goes to an official not mentioned under Article 951(1) k.c., from such a time when the person to whom he addressed is acting has the right to take part in the drawing-up of the will.

Consider first case: it should be taken into account that allographic wills have always been popular primarily in rural areas, where there was reduced legal awareness and too much competence was often attributed to local officials.

This is evidenced by the fact that the most often unauthorized official person, because of whom the allographic will proved invalid, was the chief.

He is a representative of the local government of the village and performs a number of tasks assigned to him in the field of state administration, which may give rise to the misconception that he is a body entitled to cooperate in drawing up an allographic will.

Without being actually entitled to do this, he should refuse to accept the declaration of the last will of the heir. If he does not, however, it strengthens the wrong belief of the heir that he is making a will in compliance with the applicable law. As a consequence, this is done within the meaning of Article 952(1) k.c.

to the impossibility of maintaining the ordinary form of a will or such an obstacle to the preservation of that form, which practically excludes the possibility of using it[32]. Similarly, the tester went to make an allographic will to the head of the civil status office 33 (they have only received such rights 28 December 1996).

According to the line adopted by the case-law, conversion appears to be permissible if the delegator, which has not been brought out of error, declared his last wish towards an employee of the local government administration on a municipal or higher level, since such a person may be presumed to know the rules.

Doubts will arise when the testator elects a representative of the central government administration who never had the competence to participate in the making of the allographic will.

It will certainly not be possible to apply a similar solution to persons with completely different responsibilities, such as the head of a public undertaking or the president of a cooperative[34].

One cannot speak of an allographic will in the event that no official person was involved in it, but what if someone falsely claimed to be such, and the testator could not verify it? On the one hand, this is contrary to the nature of the allographic will, but with second – the situation is very similar to the previous cases.

The tester kept due diligence, and his misconception is fully justified.

The Allographic Testament has been functioning in Polish almost unchanged form for more than half a century, but there are significant changes within it concerning the circle of persons authorized to receive the declaration of will of the heir.

This may happen during the lifetime of the future heir, especially in the period between the decision to draft a will and its implementation. It does not seem appropriate to expect all citizens to keep track of the changes in the law, and in any case the practice does not indicate so.

This also applies to officials who are not always aware that the law of succession has been amended[35].

The last possible case concerns an official appointed to participate in the drawing-up of an allographic will under the Act but not complying with statutory requirements. Remember that to those mentioned under Article 951(1) Other provisions also apply.

Since it is widely accepted in doctrine that they are qualified witnesses of wills, the standards on this role apply. This is primarily about Article 956 k.c.

It seems that the special occasion will be the drawing up of an allographic will, for example, against the secretary of the municipality sentenced by a final judgment for making false statements, resulting in the nullity of the will[36].

At that time, conversion may be carried out provided that they were present outside the official body during the test three persons capable of being a testamentary witness.

3.4. „Joint’ Allographic will

The specific reason for the annulment of the allographic will is the inclusion in the protocol of the last will two or more people. According to Article 942 k.c. wills may contain orders only one the heirs.

However, the prohibition on the drawing up of joint wills does not preclude the recognition of statements of will submitted together by the two heirs in the form of an allographic will as two separate oral wills[37].

The nullity of the allographic will, as in the above cases, deprives the fallor of the ability to retain any ordinary form of will. If in a given case another form of will could also be applied and this form was retained, then such will is valid[38]. Invalidity of the will envisaged under Article 951 k.c.

may be due to the failure to maintain any applicable law. In the absence of any grounds for limiting special circumstances within the meaning of Article 952(1) c.

to cases of failure by the competent public officer of the provision Article 951 c., in the resolution of the Supreme Court of 9 February 1981 accepted 39 , that a special circumstance may also be the failure of an officer to retain another provision, causing the nullity of the will from Article 951 Infringement Article 942 k.c.

In order to clarify the concept of a common will, reference must be made to the linguistic interpretation again. A thorough analysis was made by the Supreme Court in its resolution of 22 March 1971 40 , which will be consecrated to this paragraph.

The Supreme Court indicates that the legislator uses the word ‘:testament’ in two various meanings, namely, in the sense of unilateral and enforceable legal acts, in which the succession disposes of its estate in the event of death and in the sense of a document covering the will.

The distinction in question illustrates the content Article 946 k.c. This provision uses the word “testament” in the sense of the aforementioned unilateral legal act, when it states that a will may be revoked in such a way that the heir will draw up a new will.

Further – in the sense of a document, when it indicates that an appeal may also take place in such a way that the heir destroys the will or deprives it of the qualities upon which its validity depends. By Article 942 k.c. wills may contain orders only one the heirs.

According to the Supreme Court, if the word “testament” were used in this provision In the first of the meanings presented, it would include the sentence: “The legal act of one-sided and appealable, in which the heir orders his estate in the event of death, may contain a decree only one the heirs’, and therefore that provision would contain a semanticly inactive sentence.

By elimination, it should be concluded that Article 942 k.c. uses the word “testament” In the second of the meanings presented. At your disposal Article 942 k.c. a document containing the will, in particular the written will envisaged under Article 951 k.c., may contain only the arrangements one the heirs.

There is no norm to say that an oral will can contain only dispositions one the heirs. The common will must be understood as a merger two or more wills in one document which has the character of a will a will. It can only be about a will in writing.

Whether an allographic will can be considered a joint will does not prejudge the fact that two or more people declared their will at the same time to the same witnesses and that their dispositions were somehow related.

It is important that each be recorded in a separate protocol, which should not be identified with a single sheet of paper. Both wills may be placed on one card provided that each has been dated and signed.

It is also irrelevant to deploy protocols – whether one has been written under second Or if you can physically divide a piece of paper so that there is only one part of it one[41].

Only a simultaneous presence is necessary to preserve the form of the oral will third witnesses, a statement to them by the delegator of his last will and their acceptance of this content. Reasons exhaustive statutory form requirements. Therefore, upon their fulfilment the will is drawn up and has legal existence[42]. If both heirs made a statement of their last will, they were drawn up two separate oral wills having legal existence and existing only in consciousness.

Such separate wills do not cease to be separate ones, even though they are submitted simultaneously and are linked in substance. Oral wills can never be merged. Nor can they be the so-called common will. Therefore, there is no need to formulate a norm prohibiting the drawing up of an oral will which contains more than one the heirs.

The Supreme Court's position on the conversion of the joint allographic will was consistently maintained[43]. The view that the oral will may be a joint will was defended by J. Stargomorski based on the assumption that there is no two the meaning of the “testament” and this is only a definition of legal action[44].

4. Effects of conversion

According to the Supreme Court resolution of 22 April 1974, where special circumstances within the meaning of Article 952(1) k.c., justifying the declaration of the last will of the heir as an oral will, is nullity of the will provided for under Article 951 k.c.

due to a violation of the applicable law, the cessation of the circumstances justifying the failure to maintain the form of ordinary will shall take place when the heir has been informed of the annulment of the will drawn up by him under the procedure Article 951 k.c. 45 .

This applies both to the situation where the nullity of the allographic will is due to the wrong idea of the heir that he declared his last will towards an officer authorized to cooperate in drawing up that will 46 , and the failure to keep the law on his part. In such a case, the six-month period of Article 955 k.c.

starts with the cessation of special circumstances[47]. Counting it from the moment of drawing up an invalid will in practice would prevent conversion, since this fact is most often revealed after the testator's death.

His unawareness must be treated as a reason to interrupt the statute of limitations in order not to oppose the purpose of the entire legal institution.

Another problem is the way to fix the last will. If a protocol is written, it ceases to be a will and becomes a statement of knowledge of the content of the oral will. If due to a breach Article 942 k.c. will written in accordance with Article 951(2) k.c. is invalid, but the conditions for drawing up the oral will have been met and its form has been preserved, this protocol written down in mode Article 951 k.c. becomes a document with only secondary evidence[48].

If the protocol meets the requirements of the letter of Article 952(2) k.c., the place and date contained therein are also the place and date of drawing up the oral will. There is a problem with what to do when the protocol does not contain all the necessary signatures.

Is it enough to supplement them, or is it necessary to prepare a new writing? It seems safer. second solution[49]. This will also be the only way if the contents of the protocol were incompatible with the testator or the protocol was not created at all.

If there is a conversion of the allographic will, the official person usually becomes a witness to the oral will, because in this form they need at least third, And for the drawing up of the will in ordinary form, the presence was sufficient two. However, it may be someone else who participated in the testing.

Summary

Undoubtedly, willow conversion is an extremely important issue. In Polish law, the will is the only act that disposes of all assets in case of death. Freedom of testing is a constitutional right and includes fundamental civil rights in accordance with Article 21(64) Basic Act.

The conversion of an allographic will to an oral will may in practice be the only chance to maintain the real, last will of the deceased.

Although the allographic will is a form chosen by testers increasingly less frequently and loses its importance to notarial and written wills, it still enjoys recognition, and thanks to the friendly line of judgment it remains an effective institution.

______________________________________________