SECTION 2-1104.Uniform Probate Code PART SUPPLEMENTED BY OTHER LAW.

SECTION 2-1104. PART SUPPLEMENTED BY OTHER LAW.
(a) Unless displaced by a provision of this [part], the principles of law and equity supplement this [part].
(b) This [part] does not limit any right of a person to waive, release, disclaim, or

297

renounce an interest in or power over property under a law other than this [part].
Comment
The supplementation of the provisions of the Act by the principles of law and equity in Section 2-1104(a) is important because the Act is not a complete statement of the law relating to disclaimers. For example, Section 2-1105(b) permits a trustee to disclaim, yet the disclaiming trustee must still adhere to all applicable fiduciary duties. See Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 86 Reporter’s Notes to cmt. f. Similarly, the provisions of Section 2-1113 on bars to disclaiming are subject to supplementation by equitable principles. See Badouh v. Hale, 22 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2000) (invalidating a disclaimer of an expectancy as contrary to equity, on the ground that the putative disclaimant had earlier pledged it to a third party).
Not only are the provisions of the Act supplemented by the principles of law and equity, but under Section 2-1104(b) the provisions of the Act do not preempt other law that creates the right to reject an interest in or power over property. The growth of the law would be unduly restricted were the provisions of the Act completely to displace other law.
Historical Note. This Comment was added in 2010. 

SECTION 2-1102. Uniform Probate Code DEFINITIONS

SECTION 2-1102. DEFINITIONS. In this [part]:
(1) “Disclaimant” means the person to whom a disclaimed interest or power would have passed had the disclaimer not been made.
(2) “Disclaimed interest” means the interest that would have passed to the disclaimant had the disclaimer not been made.
(3) “Disclaimer” means the refusal to accept an interest in or power over property.
(4) “Fiduciary” means a personal representative, trustee, agent acting under a power of attorney, or other person authorized to act as a fiduciary with respect to the property of another person.
(5) “Jointly held property” means property held in the name of two or more persons

295

under an arrangement in which all holders have concurrent interests and under which the last surviving holder is entitled to the whole of the property.
(6) “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government; governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(7) “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The term includes an Indian tribe or band, or Alaskan native village, recognized by federal law or formally acknowledged by a state.
(8) “Trust” means:
(A) an express trust, charitable or noncharitable, with additions thereto, whenever
and however created; and
(B) a trust created pursuant to a statute, judgment, or decree which requires the
trust to be administered in the manner of an express trust.
Comment
The definition of “disclaimant” (paragraph (1)) limits the term to the person who would have received the disclaimed property or power if the disclaimer had not been made. The disclaimant is not necessarily the person making the disclaimer, who may be a guardian, custodian, or other fiduciary acting for the disclaimant or the personal representative of the disclaimant’s estate.
The term “disclaimed interest” (paragraph (2)) refers to the subject matter of a disclaimer of an interest in property and provides a compact term the use of which simplifies the drafting of Section 2-1106.
The definition of “disclaimer” (paragraph (3)) expands previous definitions. Prior Uniform Acts provided for a disclaimer of “the right of succession to any property or interest therein” and former Section 2-801 referred to “an interest in or with respect to property or an interest therein.” These previously authorized types of disclaimers are continued by the present language referring to “an interest in...property.” The language referring to “power over property” broadens the permissible scope of disclaimers to include any power over property that gives the

296

power-holder a right to control property, whether it be cast in the form of a power of appointment or a fiduciary’s management power over property or discretionary power of distribution over income or corpus.
Under the Act, a “fiduciary” (defined in paragraph (4)) is given the power to disclaim except where specifically prohibited by state law or by the document creating the fiduciary relationship. See Section 2-1105(b).
The term “jointly held property” (paragraph (5)) includes not only a traditional joint tenancy but also other property that is “held,” but may not be “owned,” by two or more persons with a right of survivorship. One form of such property is a joint bank account between parties who are not married to each other which, under the laws of many states, is owned by the parties in proportion to their deposits. (See Section 6-211(b).) This “holding” concept, as opposed to “owning,” may also be true with joint brokerage accounts under the law of some states. See Treas. Regs. § 25.2518-2(c)(4).
The terms “person” (paragraph (6)), “state” (paragraph (7)), and “trust” (paragraph (8)), are also defined in Section 1-201 of this Code, but the more modern version of these definitions is included here for ease of reference. For purposes of this part, the definitions in this section control.
The term “trust” (paragraph (8)) means an express trust, whether private or charitable, including a trust created by statute, court judgment or decree which is to be administered in the manner of an express trust. Excluded from the Act’s coverage are resulting and constructive trusts, which are not express trusts but remedial devices imposed by law. The Act is directed primarily at express trusts which arise in an estate planning or other donative context, but the definition of “trust” is not so limited. A trust created pursuant to a divorce action would be included, even though such a trust is not donative but is created pursuant to a bargained for exchange. The extent to which even more commercially-oriented trusts are subject to the Act will vary depending on the type of trust and the laws, other than this Act, under which the trust is created. Commercial trusts come in various forms, including trusts created pursuant to a state business trust act and trusts created to administer specified funds, such as to pay a pension or to manage pooled investments. See John H. Langbein, The Secret Life of the Trust: The Trust as an Instrument of Commerce, 107 Yale L.J. 165 (1997). 

Uniform Probate Code PART 11. UNIFORM DISCLAIMER OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ACT (1999/2006) GENERAL COMMENT

PART 11. UNIFORM DISCLAIMER OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ACT (1999/2006) GENERAL COMMENT
Part 11 incorporates into the Code the Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act (1999/2006) (UDPIA or Act). The UDPIA replaces the Code’s former disclaimer provision (Section 2-801). It also replaces three Uniform Acts promulgated in 1978 (Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act, Uniform Disclaimer of Transfers by Will, Intestacy or Appointment Act, and Uniform Disclaimer of Transfers under Nontestamentary Instruments Act). The new Act is the most comprehensive disclaimer statute ever written. It is designed to allow every sort of disclaimer, including those that are useful for tax planning purposes. It does not, however, include a specific time limit on the making of any disclaimer. Because a disclaimer is a refusal to accept, the only bar to a disclaimer should be acceptance of the offer. In addition, in almost all jurisdictions disclaimers can be used for more than tax planning. A proper disclaimer will often keep the disclaimed property from the disclaimant’s creditors. In short, the new Act is an enabling statute which prescribes all the rules for refusing a proffered interest in or power over property and the effect of that refusal on the power or interest while leaving the effect of the refusal itself to other law. Section 2-1113(e) explicitly states that a disclaimer may be barred or limited by law other than the Act.
The decision not to include a specific time limit – to “decouple” the disclaimer statute from the time requirement applicable to a “qualified disclaimer” under IRC § 2518 – is also designed to reduce confusion. The older Uniform Acts and almost all the current state statutes (many of which are based on those Acts) were drafted in the wake of the passage of IRC § 2518 in 1976. That provision replaced the “reasonable time” requirement of prior law with a requirement that a disclaimer must be made within nine months of the creation of the interest disclaimed if the disclaimer is to be a “qualified disclaimer” which is not regarded as transfer by the disclaimant. The statutes that were written in response to this new provision of tax law reflected the nine month time limit. Under most of these statutes (including the older Uniform Acts and former Section 2-801) a disclaimer must be made within nine months of the creation of a present interest (for example, as disclaimer of an outright gift under a will must be made within nine months of the decedent’s death), which corresponds to the requirement of IRC § 2518. A future interest, however, may be disclaimed within nine months of the time the interest vests in possession or enjoyment (for example, a remainder whether or not contingent on surviving the holder of the life income interest must be disclaimed within nine months of the death of the life income beneficiary). The time limit for future interests does not correspond to IRC § 2518 which generally requires that a qualified disclaimer of a future interest be made within nine months of the interest’s creation, no matter how contingent it may then be. The nine-month time limit of the existing statutes really is a trap. While it superficially conforms to IRC § 2518, its application to the disclaimer of future interests does not. The removal of all mention of time limits will clearly signal the practitioner that the requirements for a tax qualified disclaimer are set by different law.

294

The elimination of the time limit is not the only change from current statutes. The Act abandons the concept of “relates back” as a proxy for when a disclaimer becomes effective. Instead, by stating specifically when a disclaimer becomes effective and explicitly stating in Section 2-1105(f) that a disclaimer “is not a transfer, assignment, or release,” the Act makes clear the results of refusing property or powers through a disclaimer. Second, UDPIA creates rules for several types of disclaimers that have not been explicitly addressed in previous statutes. The Act provides detailed rules for the disclaimer of interests in jointly held property (Section 2- 1107). Such disclaimers have important uses especially in tax planning, but their status under current law is not clear. Furthermore, although current statutes mention the disclaimer of jointly held property, they provide no details. Recent developments in the law of qualified disclaimers of jointly held property make fuller treatment of such disclaimers necessary. Section 2-1108 addresses the disclaimer by trustees of property that would otherwise become part of the trust. The disclaimer of powers of appointment and other powers not held in a fiduciary capacity is treated in Section 2-1109 and disclaimers by appointees, objects, and takers in default of exercise of a power of appointment is the subject of Section 2-1110. Finally, Section 2-1111 provides rules for the disclaimer of powers held in a fiduciary capacity. 

[SECTION 2-1010. Uniform Probate Code INTERNATIONAL WILL INFORMATION REGISTRATION.

[SECTION 2-1010. INTERNATIONAL WILL INFORMATION REGISTRATION. The [Secretary of State] shall establish a registry system by which authorized persons may register in a central information center, information regarding the execution of international wills, keeping that information in strictest confidence until the death of the maker and then making it available to any person desiring information about any will who presents a death certificate or other satisfactory evidence of the testator’s death to the center. Information that may be received, preserved in confidence until death, and reported as indicated is limited to the name, social-security or any other individual-identifying number established by law, address, and date and place of birth of the testator, and the intended place of deposit or safekeeping of the instrument pending the death of the maker. The [Secretary of State], at the request of the authorized person, may cause the information it receives about execution of any international will to be transmitted to the registry system of another jurisdiction as identified by the testator, if that other system adheres to rules protecting the confidentiality of the information similar to those established in this state.]
Comment
The relevance of this optional, bracketed section to the other sections constituting the

292

uniform law concerning international wills is explained in the Prefatory Note. Also, Mr. Plantard’s observations regarding the Resolution attached to the 1973 Convention are pertinent. He writes:
“The Resolution adopted by the Washington Conference and annexed to its Final Act encourages States which adopt the Uniform Law to make additional provisions for the registering and safekeeping of the international will. The authors of the Uniform Law considered that it was not possible to lay down uniform rules on this subject on account of the differences in tradition and outlook, but several times, both during the preparatory work and during the final diplomatic phase, they underlined the importance of States making such provisions.
“The Resolution recommends organising a system enabling...’the safekeeping, search and discovery of an international will as well as the accompanying certificate’...
“Indeed lawyers know that many wills are never carried out because the very existence of the will itself remains unknown or because the will is never found or is never produced. It would be quite possible to organise a register or index which would enable one to know after the death of a person whether he had drawn up a will. Some countries have already done something in this field, for example, Quebec, Spain, the Federal Republic of Germany, where this service is connected with the Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths. Such a system could perfectly well be fashioned so as to ensure respect for the legitimate wish of testators to keep the very existence of their will secret.
“The Washington Conference also underlined that there is already an International Convention on this subject, namely the Council of Europe Convention on the Establishment of a Scheme of Registration of Wills, concluded at Basle on 16 May 1972, to which States which are not members of the Council of Europe may accede.
“In this Convention the Contracting States simply undertake to create an internal system for registering wills. The Convention stipulates the categories of will which should be registered, in terms which include the international will. Apart from national bodies in charge of registration, the Convention also provides for the designation by each Contracting State of a national body which must remain in contact with the national bodies of other States and communicate registrations and any information asked for. The Convention specifies that registration must remain secret during the life of the testator. This system, which will come into force between a number of European States in the near future, interested the authors of the Convention, even if they do not accede to it. The last paragraph of the Resolution follows the pattern of the Basle Convention by recommending, in the interests of facilitating an international exchange of information on this matter, the designation in each State of authorities or services to handle such exchanges.
“As for the organisation of the safekeeping of international wills, the resolution merely underlies the importance of this, without making any specific suggestions in this regard. This problem has already been discussed in connection with Article 8 of the Uniform Law.”

293

The Council of Europe Convention on the Establishment of a Scheme of Registration of Wills of May 16, 1972 and related documents were available to the reporter and provided the guidelines for Section 2-1010 of this part. 

SECTION 2-1009.Uniform Probate Code PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL WILL; ELIGIBILITY; RECOGNITION BY AUTHORIZING AGENCY.

SECTION 2-1009. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL WILL; ELIGIBILITY; RECOGNITION BY AUTHORIZING AGENCY. Individuals who have been admitted to practice law before the courts of this state and who are in good standing as active law practitioners in this state, are hereby declared to be

291

authorized persons in relation to international wills.
Comment
The subject of who should be designated to be authorized persons under the Uniform Law is discussed under the heading “Description of the Proposal” in the Prefatory Note.
The first draft of the Uniform Law presented to the National Conference at its 1975 meeting in Quebec City included provision for a special new licensing procedure through which others than attorneys might become qualified. The ensuing discussion resulted in rejection of this approach in favor of the simpler approach of Section 2-1009. Among other difficulties with the special licensee approach, representatives of the State Department expressed concern about the attendant burden on the U.S. as Depositary Government, of receiving, keeping up to date, and interpreting to foreign governments the results of fifty different state licensing systems. 

SECTION 2-1006.Uniform Probate Code INTERNATIONAL WILL; EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE.

SECTION 2-1006. INTERNATIONAL WILL; EFFECT OF CERTIFICATE. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the certificate of the authorized person shall be conclusive of the formal validity of the instrument as a will under this [part]. The absence or irregularity of a certificate shall not affect the formal validity of a will under this [part].
Comment
This section, which corresponds to Articles 11 and 12 of the Annex, must be read with the definition of “authorized person” in Section 2-1001, and Articles III and IV of the 1973 Convention which will become binding on all states if and when the United States joins that treaty. Articles III and IV of the Convention provide:
Article III The capacity of the authorized person to act in connection with an international will, if conferred in accordance with the law of a Contracting Party, shall be recognized in the territory of the other Contracting Parties.
Article IV The effectiveness of the certificate provided for in Article 10 of the Annex shall be recognized in the territories of all Contracting Parties.
In effect, the state enacting this law will be recognizing certificates by authorized persons designated, not only by this state, but by the United States and other parties to the 1973 Convention. Once the identity of one making a certificate on an international will is established, the will may be proved without more, assuming the presence of the recommended form of certificate. Article IX(3) of the 1973 Convention constitutes the United States as the Depositary under the Convention, and Article II obligates each country joining the Convention to notify the Depositary Government of the persons designated by its law as authorized to act in connection with international wills. Hence, persons interested in local probate of an international will from another country will be enabled to determine from the Department of State whether the official making the certificate in which they are interested had the requisite authority.

288

In this connection, it should be noted that under Article II of the Convention, each contracting country may designate its diplomatic or consular representatives abroad as authorized persons insofar as the local law does not prohibit it. Since the Uniform Act will be the law locally, and since it does not prohibit persons designated by foreign states that are parties to the Convention from acting locally in respect to international wills, there should be a considerable amount of latitude in selecting authorized persons to assist with wills and a correlative reduction in the chances of local non-recognition of an authorized person from abroad. Also, it should be noted that the Uniform Act does not restrict the persons which it constitutes as authorized persons in relation to the places where they can so function. This supports the view that local law as embodied in this statute should not be construed as restrictive in relation to local activities concerning international wills of foreign diplomatic and consular representatives who are resident here.
The certificate requires the authorized person to state that the witnesses had the requisite capacity. If the authorized person derives his authority from the law of a state other than that where he is acting, it would be advisable to have the certificate identify the applicable law.
The Uniform Act is silent in regard to methods of meeting local probate requirements contemplating deposit of the original will with the court. Section 3-409 of the Uniform Probate Code, or its counterpart in a state that has not adopted the uniform law on the point, becomes pertinent. The last sentence of UPC Section 3-409 provides:
“A will from a place which does not provide for probate of a will after death, may be proved for probate in this state by a duly authenticated certificate of its legal custodian that the copy introduced is a true copy and that the will has become effective under the law of the other place.”
One final matter warrants mention. Implicit in local proof of an instrument by means of authentication provided by a foreign official, is the problem of proving the authority of the official. The traditional, exceedingly formalistic, method of accomplishing this has been through what has been known as “legalization”, a process that involves a number of certificates. The capacity of the official who authenticates the signature of the party to the document, if derived from his status as a county official, is proved by the certificate of a high county official. In turn, the county official’s status is proved by the certificate of the area’s secretary of state, whose status is established by another and so on until, ultimately, the Department of State certifies to the identity of the highest state official in a format that will be persuasive to the receiving country’s foreign relations representative.
Article VI of the 1973 Convention forbids legalization of the signature of testators and witnesses. It provides:
1. The signature of the testator, of the authorized person, and of the witnesses to an international will, whether on the will or on the certificate, shall be exempt from any legalization or like formality.

289

2. Nonetheless, the competent authorities of any Contracting Party may, if necessary, satisfy themselves as to the authenticity of the signature of the authorized person.
Thus, it would appear that if the United States, as contracting party, satisfies itself that the signature of a foreign authorized person is authentic, and so indicates to those interested in local probate of the document, the local court, though presumably able to receive and to act upon evidence to the contrary, cannot reject an international will for lack of proof. This is not to say, of course, that the authenticity of the signature of the foreign authorized person must be shown through the aid of the State Department; plainly, the point may be implied from the face of the document unless and until challenged.
Mr. Plantard’s commentary on this portion of the uniform law is as follows:
“Article 12 states that the certificate is conclusive of the formal validity of the international will. It is therefore a kind of proof supplied in advance.
“This provision is only really understandable in those legal systems, like the United States, where a will can only take effect after it has been subjected to a preliminary procedure of verification (‘Probate’) designed to check on its validity. The mere presentation of the certificate should suffice to satisfy the requirements of this procedure.
“However, the certificate is not always irrefutable as proof, as is indicated by the words ‘in the absence of evidence to the contrary’. If it is challenged, then the ensuing litigation will be solved in accordance with the legal procedure applicable in the Contracting State where the will and certificate are presented.
“The principle set out in Article 13 is already implied by Article 1, as only the provisions of Articles 2 to 5 are prescribed on pain of invalidity. Besides, it is perfectly logical that the absence of or irregularities in a certificate should not affect the formal validity of the will, as the certificate is a document serving essentially for purposes of proof drawn up by the authorised person, without the testator taking any part either in drawing it up or in checking it. This provision is in perfect harmony with Article 12 which by the terms ‘in the absence of evidence to the contrary’ means that one can challenge what is stated in the certificate.
“In consideration of the fact that the authorised person will be a practising lawyer officially designated by each Contracting State, it is difficult to imagine him omitting or neglecting to draw up the certificate provided for by the national law to which he is subject. Besides, he would lay himself open to an action based on his professional and civil liability. He could even expose himself to sanctions laid down by his national law.
“However, the international will subsists, even if, by some quirk, the certificate which is a means of proof but not necessarily the only one, should be missing, be incomplete or contain particulars which are manifestly erroneous. In these undoubtedly very rare circumstances, proof that the formalities prescribed on pain of invalidity have been carried out will have to be produced in accordance with the legal procedures applicable in each State which has adopted the Uniform Law.” 

SECTION 2-1005.Uniform Probate Code INTERNATIONAL WILL; CERTIFICATE.

SECTION 2-1005. INTERNATIONAL WILL; CERTIFICATE. The authorized person shall attach to the will a certificate to be signed by him establishing that the requirements of this [part] for valid execution of an international will have been complied with. The authorized person shall keep a copy of the certificate and deliver another to the testator. The certificate shall be substantially in the following form:
CERTIFICATE (Convention of October 26, 1973)

284

1. I, ____________________ (name, address and capacity), a person authorized to act in connection with international wills
   
2. Certify that on ________ (date) at __________ (place)
   
3. (testator) ____________________ (name, address, date and place of birth) in my presence and that of the witnesses
   
4. (a)____________________ (name, address, date and place of birth)
   (b)____________________ (name, address, date and place of birth) has declared that the attached document is his will and that he knows the contents thereof.
   
5. I furthermore certify that:
   
6. (a) in my presence and in that of the witnesses
   (1) the testator has signed the will or has acknowledged his signature previously affixed.
   *(2) following a declaration of the testator stating that he was unable to sign his will for the following reason _____
   I have mentioned this declaration on the will
   *the signature has been affixed by ____________________ (name, address)
   
7. (b) the witnesses and I have signed the will;
   
8. *(c) each page of the will has been signed by ____________ and numbered;
   
9. (d) I have satisfied myself as to the identity of the testator and of the witnesses as designated above;
   

10. (e) the witnesses met the conditions requisite to act as such according to the law under which I am acting;
11. *(f) the testator has requested me to include the following statement concerning the safekeeping of his will:

      _________________________

_________________________ *To be completed if appropriate
12. PLACE
13. DATE

285

14. SIGNATURE and, if necessary, SEAL

Comment

This section embodies the content of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Annex with only minor, clarifying changes. Those familiar with the pre-proved will authorized by Uniform Probate Code Section 2-504 should be comfortable with Sections 2-1005 and 2-1006 of this act. Indeed, inclusion of these provisions in the Annex was the result of a concession by those familiar with civil law approaches to problems of execution and proof of wills, to the English speaking countries where will ceremonies are divided between those occurring as testator acts, and those occurring later when the will is probated. Further, since English and Canadian practices reduce post-mortem probate procedures down to little more than the presentation of the will to an appropriate registry and so, approach civil law customs, the concession was largely to accommodate American states where post-mortem probate procedures are very involved. Thus, the primary purpose of the certificate, which provides conclusive proof of the formal validity of the will, is to put wills executed before a civil law notary and wills executed in the American tradition on a par; with the certificate, both are good without question insofar as formal requirements are concerned.
It should be noted that Article III of the Convention binds countries becoming parties to recognize the capacity of an authorized person to act in relation to an international will, as conferred by the law of another country that is a party. This means that an international will coming into one of our states that has enacted the uniform law will be entirely good under local law, and that the certificate from abroad will provide conclusive proof of its validity.
May an international will be contested? The answer is clearly affirmative as to contests based on lack of capacity, fraud, undue influence, revocation or ineffectiveness based on the contents of the will or substantive restraints on testamentary power. Contests based on failure to follow mandatory requirements of execution are not precluded because the next section provides that the certificate is conclusive only “in the absence of evidence to the contrary”. However, the Convention becomes relevant when one asks whether a probate court may require additional proof of the genuineness of signatures by testators and witnesses. It provides:
Article VI 1. The signature of the testator, of the authorized person, and of the witnesses to an international will, whether on the will or on the certificate, shall be exempt from any legalization or like formality.
2. Nonetheless, the competent authorities of any Contracting Party may, if necessary, satisfy themselves as to the authenticity of the signature of the authorized person.
Presumably, the prohibition against legalization would not preclude additional proof of genuineness if evidence tending to show forgery is introduced, but without contrary proof, the certificate proves the will.
The authorized person is directed to attach the certificate to the will, and to keep a copy. The sense of “keep” intended by the draftsman is “continuously keep,” or “preserve.”

286

If the will with attached certificate is to be retained by the authorized person or otherwise placed for safekeeping out of the possession of the testator, good practice would involve an unexecuted copy of the will that could be given to the testator for disposition or retention as he saw fit. It would seem that good practice in these cases also would involve attachment of the testator’s copy of the certificate to testator’s copy of the will. The statute is silent on this point, however.
Mr. Plantard’s commentary on the articles of the Annex that are pertinent to Section 2- 1005, are as follows:
“This provision specifies that the authorised person must attach to the international will a certificate drawn up in accordance with the form set out in Article 10, establishing that the Uniform Law’s provisions have been complied with. The term ‘joint au testament’ means that the certificate must be added to the will, that is, fixed thereto. The English text which uses the word ‘attach’ is perfectly clear on this point. Furthermore, it results from Article 11 that the certificate must be made out in three copies. This document, the contents of which are detailed in Article 10, is proof that the formalities required for the validity of the international will have been complied with. It also reveals the identity of the persons who participated in drawing up the document and may, in addition, contain a declaration by the testator as to the place where he intends his will to be kept. It should be stressed that the certificate is drawn up under the entire responsibility of the authorised person who is the only person to sign it.
“Article 10 sets out the form for the certificate. The authorised person must abide by it, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 itself, laying down this or a substantially similar form. This last phrase could not be taken as authorising him to depart from this form: it only serves to allow for small changes of detail which might be useful in the interests of improving its comprehensibility or presentation, for example, the omission of the particulars marked with an asterisk indicating that they are to be completed where appropriate when in fact they do not need to be completed and thus become useless.
“Including the form of a certificate in one of the articles of a Uniform Law is unusual. Normally these appear in the annexes to Conventions. However, in this way, the authors of the Uniform Law underlined the importance of the certificate and its contents. Moreover, the Uniform Law already forms the Annex to the Convention itself.
“The 14 particulars indicated on the certificate are numbered. These numbers must be reproduced on each certificate, so as to facilitate its reading, especially when the reader speaks a foreign language, as they will help him to find the relevant details more easily: the name of the authorised person and the testator, addresses, etc.
“The certificate contains all the elements necessary for the identification of the authorized person, testator and witnesses. It expressly mentions all the formalities which have to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Law. Furthermore, the certificate contains all the information required for the will’s registration according to the system introduced by the Council of Europe Convention on the Establishment of a Scheme of Registration of Wills, signed at Basle on 16 May 1972.

287

“The authorised person must keep a copy of the certificate and deliver one to the testator. Seeing that another copy has to be attached to the will in accordance with Article 9, it may be deduced that the authorised person must make out altogether three copies of the certificate. These cannot be simple copies but have to be three signed originals. This provision is useful for a number of reasons. The fact that the testator keeps a copy of the certificate is a useful reminder for him, especially when his will is being kept by the authorised person or deposited with someone designated by national law. Moreover, discovery of the certificate among the testators’ papers will inform his heirs of the existence of a will and will enable them to find it more easily. The fact that the authorised person keeps a copy of the certificate enables him to inform the heirs as well, if necessary. Lastly, the fact that there are several copies of the certificate is a guarantee against changes being made to one of them and even, to a certain extent, against certain changes to the will itself, for example as regards its date.”