|
I overstated slightly, but I'm not persuaded by the response.
Seeing as how I've just seen the Chapter 13 procedure you refer to rejected by two different courts (and three different publishers) there in the last three years, I question its scope and acceptance. Further, the "if no paper copy can be found a scanned copy can be accepted" still refers to "a scanned copy of a properly-executed-on-paper-with-all-formalities-respected" will (which often means it was signed in front of what the US calls a "notary public" and other jurisdictions have other names for, but is definitely not what the Spanish-speaking world calls a "Notario"). Even then, if in the course of marshalling the estate the executor appointed under that rubric finds a paper copy it must be presented and substituted, with any differences however slight (like a change to a list of possessions that was included on the scan but not the paper) in favor of the paper.
I've yet to see an Estonian electronic will fully accepted outside of Estonia without a separate validation order from an Estonian court, but it's early days yet. Plus, those who've come to my attention regarding that have conflicts of interest, so perhaps — perhaps — citizens of Estonia who are resident in Estonia can take advantage of that provision.
So in a hasty response I slightly overstated matters, but in opposition to something that's "more wrong." That this is exactly what happens online all the time on every subject hasn't escaped me. "Exactly zero weight" should have been "Exactly zero weight absent other proceedings/procedures usually requiring a lawyer's assistance and several months to a year" — and the underlying point that "it's theoretically possible to evade this, but absent really extraordinary circumstances an electronic copy of a will should never be the only copy" stands.
|