By Abby Talbot
Introduction
Louisiana succession law has long valued testamentary freedom, though it has required testators to satisfy demanding formal rules to exercise it. A donation mortis causa is an act that takes effect at the death of the donor by which he disposes of the whole or a part of his property, and it may be made only in a form authorized by law.[1] Those formalities are not merely aspirational—they are mandatory, and failure to observe them renders a testament absolutely null.[2] There are only two available forms: the olographic testament and the notarial testament.[3]
Louisiana succession law has historically been defined by strict, and often unforgiving, formal requirements governing the validity of testaments.[4] Minor deviations in form, even when the testator’s intent was clear, frequently resulted in total nullity.[5] Testamentary formalism and strict compliance protects testators from fraud, undue influence, and mistake while providing courts with clear evidentiary markers of authenticity and intent.[6] The same formalism, however, often produced harsh results. Courts invalidated wills, not because the testator’s intent was unclear, but because the document failed to satisfy a technical requirement concerning the signature form, the wording of an attestation clause, or the precise manner of execution.[7] In practice, form frequently prevailed over substance.
The 1999 revisions to Louisiana succession law dramatically simplified this landscape by reducing the testamentary forms from five to two form options, while expressly preserving the validity of instruments executed under prior law.[8] Even so, despite consolidation into fewer forms, there were still many formal requirements for the two forms and minor deviations could result in total nullity.
Recently in 2025, the Louisiana Legislature fundamentally altered this landscape.[9] The legislature revised the Civil Code’s will formality provisions, through 2025 Louisiana Acts No. 30, effective August 1, 2025, to prioritize substance over technical compliance, while simultaneously declaring that the changes are applicable both prospectively and retroactively.[10]The legislature designed the revisions to reduce the number of wills invalidated for purely technical defects but preserve safeguards against fraud and uncertainty.[11] This reform reshapes how courts evaluate olographic and notarial testaments, simplifies execution requirements, and raises significant constitutional questions regarding retroactivity and vested rights.
I. Olographic Wills
An olographic will is a handwritten will created by the testator, without witnesses or notarization.[12] Under revised Civil Code article 1575, an olographic testament must still be entirely written, dated, and signed in the handwriting of the testator.[13]These core elements remain unchanged. The 2025 revision, however, substantially liberalizes how courts assess the sufficiency of both the date and the signature.
A. The Date
Prior law required that an olographic testament be dated with the day, month, and year, though extrinsic evidence could be used to clarify an ambiguous date.[14] Under the prior law, early Louisiana courts even invalidated wills with slash dates, finding the date to be uncertain.[15] For example, in 1962, a Louisiana court found that a slash date written on an olographic will, “10/3/50,” was uncertain and constituted a vice of form contrary to the requirements for olographic wills.[16]
The revised article provides that a day, month, and year are no longer needed.[17] Louisiana Civil Code article 1575 now provides that a date is sufficient if it “resolves those controversies for which the date is relevant.”[18] Thus, under the revised article, whether a date is sufficient depends on the nature of the controversy presented. For example, if a testator leaves two wills dated only by month and year, the court must be able to determine their temporal priority to probate either instrument.[19] By contrast, where only a single will exists, a date reflecting only the month and year, may be sufficient.[20] Moreover, the revised article does not require a will to contain a month, day, or year at all. Instead, if the testator uses language that permits the court to ascertain the date through extrinsic evidence, the requirement may be satisfied.[21] For instance, a will stating that it was executed on the testator’s 30th wedding anniversary allows the precise date to be determined through extrinsic evidence. Nevertheless, it is clear that some form of a date remains necessary under the revised article to permit a court to determine when the testament was executed.[22]
This shift reflects a clear policy choice: the date matters only insofar as it resolves disputes concerning things such as capacity, revocation, or priority among multiple testaments. The focus is on if the date fufills its evidentiary function. If the date resolves those concerns, technical imperfections in the date no longer nullify the instrument.
B. The Signature
There was also a significant change to olographic wills concerning the signature. Prior law required the testator to sign at the end of the document, and any writing appearing after the signature risked exclusion at the court’s discretion.[23] The revised article eliminates any location requirement.[24] The signature may appear anywhere in the testament and is sufficient so long as it identifies the testator and evidences an intent to adopt the document as the testator’s will.[25]
Together, these provisions substantially reduce the risk that a clearly handwritten and intentional testament will fail on purely technical grounds. By design, olographic wills dispense with the requirements of a notary and witnesses, allowing individuals to express testamentary intent through a wholly handwritten instrument.[26] Thus, it is consistent with the purpose of olographic wills to relax technical requirements that might defeat an otherwise valid expression of intent.
II. Notarial Wills and Probate
Revised Louisiana Civil Code article 1576 governs notarial testaments. Unlike an olographic will, which is entirely handwritten by the testator, a notarial will is a formal, witnessed testament executed before a notary.[27] A notarial testament must be written, dated, executed in the presence of a notary and two witnesses, and signed by the testator, the notary, and both witnesses.[28] While this structure remains the same, the revision eliminates several formal requirements for a valid notarial will. Formal validity alone, however, does not render a will self-proving, since probate of a will requires satisfaction of additional, distinct requirements.[29]
A. Dates and Signatures
The revised law provides that the same rules governing the location and sufficiency of dates and signatures for olographic wills apply to notarial wills.[30] As a result, the testator’s signature need not appear at the end of the dispositive provisions, and the date may appear anywhere in the instrument so long as it resolves relevant controversies.[31] This change marks a sharp departure from prior law, under which failure to sign each page of the testament or to sign in the proper location resulted in total nullity.[32]
B. Elimination of Declaration and Attestation Clause
Under prior law, there was a requirement that the testator shall declare or signify to the notary and two witnesses that this instrument is his testament.[33] This requirement no longer exists for the validity of a notarial testament. While testamentary intent is still needed, this separate verbal or physical declaration is no longer required.[34]
Further, the most significant change was the Louisiana Legislature eliminating the need for an attestation clause.[35]Under prior article 1576, the Civil Code required the notary and witnesses to sign the declaration articulated in the article, or a substantially similar declaration.[36] The attestation clause stated:
In our presence the testator has declared or signified that this instrument is his testament and has signed it at the end and on each other separate page, and in the presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names this ___ day of ___, ___.[37]
The Louisiana Legislature eliminated this requirement for validity, citing Succession of Porche, where the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the attestation clause is of only evidentiary value, rather than substantive value.[38] The requirement that the attestation clause use this language, or substantially similar language, led courts to invalidate wills when the clause did not use the precise wording.[39] Treating the attestation clause as a prerequisite to self-proving status, rather than validity, avoids unnecessary litigation and invalidation of otherwise effective wills.
C. Elimination of Special Forms
The 2025 revision also abolished a series of special-form testaments previously required for certain testators, including those unable to sign their names, unable to read, those executing wills in braille, and those who are deaf or blind.[40] All testators now execute the same form of notarial will. This change reflects a commitment to avoiding the procedural traps that previously accompanied specialized forms.
D. Validity Versus Probate
Importantly, the revision reclassified many of the formerly rigid requirements, such as signing each page and including a precise attestation clause, as self-proving requirements for probate rather than validity requirements.[41] A testament has no effect until it is probated.[42] Thus, even though compliance with these former formal validity requirements is no longer essential to a testament’s validity, such compliance may ease the probate process and ensure the testament takes effect.
Olographic testaments are never self-proving.[43] Proponents must prove olographic testaments under Code of Civil Procedure article 2883 through the testimony of two credible witnesses attesting that the testament was entirely written, dated, and signed in the testator’s handwriting.[44] This testimony may be submitted by affidavit unless the court requires live testimony.[45]
Under the old law, notarial testaments were always self-proving, which is part of the reason why the form requirements were so stringent. After the revisions, a notarial will may now be formally valid without the will being self-proving.[46] A notarial will is only self-proving under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2891 if it complies with Code of Civil Procedure article 2887(A).[47] Code of Civil Procedure article 2887 was added to the Code in the 2025 revisions and states that for a notarial will to be self-proving, the testator must sign each page at execution, and the testament must include a declaration.[48] That declaration must be either in the instrument itself, or in an attached affidavit, stating that the testator declared or signified that the document was his testament and signed each page in the presence of the notary and witnesses.[49] Failure to meet these requirements no longer renders the will invalid; it merely affects whether additional proof is required at probate.[50] If a notarial will is not self-proving, the proponent may prove it by the notary and witnesses, by any one of them if the others cannot be found, or by any two credible witnesses if none of those individuals are available.[51]
III. Retroactivity and Vested Rights: An Open Question
The most controversial aspect of the 2025 reform is its express retroactivity provision. 2025 Louisiana Acts No. 30 declares that the new law applies both prospectively and retroactively to all existing and pending claims, except that it may not revive prescribed claims or disturb final judgments.[52]
When the legislature expressly mandates retroactive application, courts generally comply unless doing so violates constitutional protections, most notably the Due Process Clauses of the Louisiana and United States Constitutions.[53]Historically, Louisiana courts have been reluctant to apply changes in law retroactively when doing so would divest individuals of their vested rights.[54] Heirs acquire their vested rights at the moment of death.[55] Therefore, a will being probated that would have been held invalid under prior law may be divesting these intestate heirs of their vested right in the succession.
Recent jurisprudence, however, complicates this analysis. In Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, the Louisiana Supreme Court overruled the Burmaster decision and suggested that divestiture of a vested right is not, by itself, dispositive.[56] Instead, courts must ask whether the retroactive deprivation is justified by a legitimate governmental interest.[57] This inquiry is typically evaluated under rational basis review.[58]
Under this framework, the legislature’s interest in honoring testamentary intent, reducing unnecessary nullities, and promoting uniformity in succession law may well satisfy rational basis scrutiny. The Louisiana Supreme Court may ultimately uphold retroactive application of the revisions, even where it alters the distribution that would have occurred under intestacy. If the Louisiana Supreme Court finds this retroactive application is constitutional, the revised law will apply to wills executed prior to and after August 1, 2025. If the Court finds retroactivity is unconstitutional, however, then Louisiana courts will apply the prior law to pre-August 2025 wills and the revised law only to wills executed after August 1, 2025. In either scenario, this unresolved controversy will have no effect on closed successions, and it will not revive any prescribed claims.[59]
Conclusion
Louisiana’s 2025 reform of will formality requirements marks a decisive shift away from rigid formalism and toward effectuating testamentary intent. By relaxing signature and date requirements, eliminating special forms, and distinguishing between validity and probate, the Louisiana Legislature has significantly reduced the risk that minor technical errors will defeat a testator’s wishes. Additionally, the Act’s express retroactivity provision raises constitutional questions that will shape succession litigation in the future. Whether courts ultimately permit retroactive validation of wills that previously failed under old law remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Louisiana succession law has entered a new era—one in which substance increasingly prevails over form.
[1] La. Civ. Code art. 1469 (2009); id. 1570 (1999).
[2] La. Civ. Code art. 1573 (1999).
[3] Id. art. 1574 (1999).
[4] Ronald J. Scalise, Jr., Will Formalities in Louisiana: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, 80 La. L. Rev. 1331, 1344 (2020).
[5] Succession of Mayer, 144 So. 2d 896 (La. Ct. App. 1962); Succession of Lasseigne, 181 So. 879 (La. Ct. App. 1938); Succession of Raiford, 404 So. 2d 251 (La. 1981); Succession of Toney, 226 So. 3d 397, 399 (La. 2017).
[6] Scalise, supra note 4.
[7] See Toney, 226 So. 3d at 399.
[8] See La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2440 (1999).
[9] S. 49, 2025 Leg., Res. Sess. (La. 2025).
[10] Id.
[11] See La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1576 cmt. (c) (2025).
[12] Id. art. 1575 (2025).
[13] Id.
[14] Id. art. 1575 cmt. (d) (2025).
[15] Id.
[16] Succession of Mayer, 144 So. 2d 896 (La. Ct. App. 1962).
[17] See La. Civ. Code art. 1575 (2025).
[18] Id.
[19] See id. art. 1575 cmt. (d) (2025).
[20] See id.
[21] Id. art. 1575 (2025).
[22] See id.
[23] Id. (2001).
[24] See id. (2025).
[25] Id.
[26] See id.
[27] Id. art. 1576 (2025).
[28] Id.
[29]See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2887 (2025).
[30] La. Civ. Code art. 1576 (2025).
[31] Id.
[32] See id. (1999).
[33] Id.
[34] La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1576 cmt. (f) (2025).
[35] Id. art. 1576 cmt. (b).
[36] Id. art. 1576 (1999).
[37] Id.
[38] See id. art. 1575 cmt. (b) (2025); Succession of Porche, 288 So. 2d 27, 29 (La. 1973).
[39] See Succession of Toney, 226 So. 3d 397, 399 (La. 2017).
[40] La. Civ. Code art. 1578 (1997); id. art. 1579 (1997); id. art. 1580 (1997); id. art. 1580.1 (1999).
[41] See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2887 (2025).
[42] La. Civ. Code art. 1605 (1999).
[43] See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2883 (1999).
[44] Id.
[45] Id.
[46] La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1576 cmt. (a) (2025).
[47] La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2891 (2025).
[48] Id. art. 2887 (2025).
[49] Id.
[50] See id.
[51] Id.
[52] S. 49, 2025 Leg., Res. Sess. (La. 2025).
[53] See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 609 So. 2d 809, 816 (La. 1992) (“[T]he legislature is free, within constitutional confines, to give its enactments retrospective effect . . ..”).
[54] See Burmaster v. Plaquemines Par. Gov’t, 982 So. 2d 795, 810 (La. 2008).
[55] La. Civ. Code art. 935 (1999).
[56] Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, 386 So. 3d 280, 290 (La. 2024).
[57] Id.
[58] See id.
[59] S. 49, 2025 Leg., Res. Sess. (La. 2025).