Which rule applies to a bequest to an attesting witness to a will, in terms of validity?

• A. The bequest is void unless two other disinterested attesting witnesses are available to testify.
• B. The bequest is void if the attesting witness is not a relative.
• C. The bequest is valid regardless of other witnesses.
• D. The bequest is void if the attesting witness is also an executor.

Answer: (A)

In this area, the issue is the prohibition on a bequest to someone who is an attesting witness to the will. An attesting witness who stands to gain from the will is considered an interested witness, and the bequest to that witness is void. The safeguard is that the will can still be probated if there are at least two other disinterested witnesses who testified to the will’s execution. Those independent witnesses provide the necessary verification that the will was properly signed and witnessed, so the invalid bequest to the beneficiary-witness doesn’t taint the rest of the instrument.

So the best rule is that the bequest to the attesting witness is void unless two other disinterested attesting witnesses are available to testify. This reflects the idea that independent corroboration of execution upholds the will’s validity while preventing improprieties by a witness who benefits. The other statements miss this core protection: relatives or executors status doesn’t change the rule, and the key factor is having two independent witnesses to support the will’s execution.