Identify Issues In Probate Court Filing

---
name: identify-issues-in-probate-court-filing
task_id: trusts-estates-private-client/identify-issues-in-probate-court-filing
description: Closes the gap where agents review probate petitions without checking the surviving spouse's statutory elective share against the testamentary provision, identifying required notice for charitable bequests, flagging interested-witness issues involving a drafting lawyer or firm, and analyzing how a no-contest clause interacts with statutory spousal rights.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Identify Issues in Probate Court Filing

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat the packet as a probate-filing review for defects, omissions, and rights-triggered consequences.
- Identify how many relevant decedents, wills, codicils, petitions, affidavits, and related notices are actually in scope before analyzing them.
- If the filing package concerns only one estate, say so explicitly; if it contains multiple instruments or filings, separate them and analyze each on its own facts.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Identifying the surviving spouse’s inheritance under the will without comparing it to the statutory elective share under the governing probate law and assessing whether the difference is material.
- Failing to identify required notice to a public official when the will contains a charitable bequest.
- Not applying the interested-witness analysis when a witness may also have a financial interest in the estate or in related professional services.
- Not analyzing whether a no-contest clause could be implicated by the surviving spouse’s exercise of statutory rights, and whether those rights are treated as a contest in the relevant jurisdiction.
- Omitting the deadline for any elective-share election or similar post-probate spouse-rights deadline.
- Overstating a defect without tying it to the actual filing contents, the governing statute, and the practical consequence for the client.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Surviving spouse’s elective share: determine the governing statute, identify the applicable fraction or formula, and compare the spouse’s testamentary provision with the statutory baseline under the net probate estate.
- Elective-share deadline: identify the statutory election period triggered by probate, notice, or admission of the will, and flag the timing risk.
- Interested witness rule: assess whether any attesting witness receives a benefit or has a financial stake that may affect validity, forfeiture, or reduction under the governing statute.
- Self-proving affidavit: verify execution, notarization, and any required officer authority; distinguish a curable form defect from a defect affecting admissibility or proof.
- Charitable bequest notice: determine whether the filing requires notice to the public official or other designated authority protecting charitable interests, and whether the packet reflects compliance.
- Homestead rights and statutory allowances: assess whether the filing addresses any surviving-spouse homestead, family allowance, exempt property, or statutory award rights.
- Independent or unsupervised administration: check whether the petition satisfies consent, notice, or appointment prerequisites for the requested administration mode.
- In terrorem clause: assess whether the jurisdiction treats exercise of statutory rights as a contest, and whether the clause is likely implicated by the spouse’s election or related filings.
- Estate valuation completeness: test whether the petition’s stated estate value captures all probate assets and excludes nonprobate property as appropriate.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Identify each filing and instrument in scope, then separate will-execution issues, petition issues, notice issues, and spouse-rights issues.
2. State the governing rule for each issue by statute, rule, or recognized probate doctrine; do not conclude without naming the authority.
3. For spouse-rights issues, compare the testamentary provision against the statutory share, allowance, or homestead right, and explain the practical consequence of any shortfall or waiver risk.
4. For witness and affidavit issues, review each attestation, beneficiary link, and notarization element, then state whether the defect affects validity, proof, or only administrative convenience.
5. For charitable-bequest issues, identify the charitable disposition, the required notice recipient, and whether the filing package demonstrates service or filing compliance.
6. For administration-mode issues, test the petition’s requested procedure against the required consents, notices, or sworn statements.
7. For in terrorem issues, connect the clause to the specific statutory act at issue and explain whether the act is likely protected or likely to trigger forfeiture.
8. For valuation issues, compare the petition’s asset summary to the supporting schedules and identify omitted probate categories, overinclusions, or mismatched totals.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Track how the petition, will, affidavits, notices, and proposed order interact; a defect in one document may affect the others.
- Track timing from death to filing, filing to notice, and notice to election deadline; timing often determines severity.
- Where multiple statutory rights are implicated, analyze them in sequence rather than as a blended waiver issue.
- If one filing cures or preserves another defect, say so; if one omission compounds another, say that as well.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Produce a single issue-identification memorandum.
- Use an ordinal severity scale defined once at the top, such as Critical / High / Medium / Low, and apply it consistently to every issue.
- Organize the memo in practical order: overview, issues by severity, non-issues or items requiring no action, then recommended actions.
- Each issue entry should include: severity, legal basis, factual basis from the packet, why it matters, and the downstream consequence for the client.
- Each issue entry should also close the loop by tying the point to the relevant filing figure, threshold, deadline, notice requirement, or estate component, and by noting any document interaction that changes the analysis.
- Cite the controlling authority for every legal proposition by name and section, rule, or recognized doctrine.
- If a specific authority is not supplied in the packet, cite the generally recognized probate rule or statute structure most likely to govern the issue.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that assigns an imperative next step, the responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the filing or election deadline.
- Use clear, non-technical prose where possible, but preserve enough legal precision that counsel can act on the memo immediately.