Montgomery County; judge of probate, authorized to register wills
Summary
HB447 is a local act for Montgomery County that authorizes residents who have made a will to file that will with the Montgomery County Judge of Probate. The bill requires the probate judge to keep a docket recording each will deposited, the date of deposit, and the date of withdrawal, while making the underlying files confidential before the testator’s death. Only the person who deposited the will, that person’s attorney, or a legal representative may access the file before death, though the docket itself remains open to public inspection.
The bill also allows the probate judge to charge a reasonable filing fee for each will deposited. It expressly preserves a person’s ability to revoke a will by executing a later will and states that the act does not alter the ambulatory nature of wills, meaning the will remains revocable during the testator’s lifetime. The act takes effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
HB447 creates a new county-specific procedure in Montgomery County for the safekeeping and registration of wills in the probate court. It affects the administrative duties of the Judge of Probate by adding docketing, confidentiality, and record-keeping responsibilities, and it authorizes the collection of filing fees. The bill does not change statewide probate law generally, but it adds a local option for will deposit and storage for Montgomery County residents.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support for HB447 in both chambers, with no recorded opposition in the House or second house. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into debate, but the unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as a routine, noncontroversial probate administration bill. Its local and procedural nature likely contributed to the broad consensus.
Contention
No notable contention is reflected in the available record. The bill’s main policy features are confidentiality of deposited wills, public access only to the docket, and authorization for a reasonable fee, but there is no evidence of disagreement over those provisions in the votes provided. The only potential issues implicit in the text are access to probate records and the scope of the probate judge’s authority, but no opposing arguments are documented.