Will written on napkin valid, judge rules

A Yorkton man’s will is valid, even though it was “written in pen on a very thin, brown-coloured, paper restaurant napkin,” a Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench judge ruled in a written decision.

The living children of Philip Langan Senior, who died four years ago, asked the court to rule on whether the will was valid. Six of his seven living children recognized it as a will.

On the napkin, the seven living children were listed, followed by the words “split my properly evenly” and “Dad Philip Langan.”

One of Langan’s daughters, Maryann, questioned its authenticity, filing a court affidavit in March 2019 stating that she couldn’t confirm it was in her father’s handwriting, and that shortly before he died, he’d told her that he would not leave a will because “he wanted us kids to fight like he had to.” She also noted he had misspelled her first name.

This prompted three of her siblings to file their own affidavits, in which they confirmed the napkin was written by their father, and that he more than once referred to his will: “Sharon has my will, that napkin.”

Sharon Langan testified that she didn’t see him write the will, but that he signed the napkin in front of her, declaring, “This is my will ... I want you to keep this in case something happens.”

Ronald Langan testified that he drove his father to a Mcdonald’s Restaurant in Yorkton, a restaurant Phillip frequented, in spring of 2015.

While Ronald said he didn’t go inside with his father, he made arrangements to pick him up later, and he was aware other people were there when his father wrote on the napkin. He testified that a month after his father died, his sister Sharon gave him the napkin and he gave it to his lawyer.

Their brother, Philip Langan Junior, wrote in his affidavit that he witnessed his father giving the napkin to Sharon, and that he heard him say the same thing: that the napkin was his will.

All three also testified they’d never heard their father say he wanted his children to fight over his estate.

Justice Donald Layh ruled the napkin indicated Langan had clear intent, but also that Maryann never responded to her sibling’s affidavits, prompting the court to wonder “whether her silence may be an implicit acceptance that these later-sworn affidavits have convinced her that the document, indeed, does show a testamentary intention.”