It’s estimated that one in 20 American homes have a Thomas Kinkade painting hanging on their walls. The self-proclaimed “Painter of Light” turned his gift of rendering landscapes and other works of art into a tremendous commercial endeavor.
In fact, his numerous corporate holdings reportedly topped $100 million in annual sales some years, primarily due to mass reproduction of his works.
But the “Painter of Light” was not without his demons, primarily alcoholism and a failed marriage. He died suddenly at age 54 in April, an early and untimely demise reportedly caused by “acute intoxication” from alcohol and valium.
His wife, Nanette, had filed for divorce two years before and the couple was legally separated. Kinkade died while living with his girlfriend of 18 months, Amy Pinto-Walsh.
The girlfriend and estranged wife began fighting almost immediately after Kinkade died. Pinto-Walsh was kept from the funeral and slapped with a lawsuit for breach of a confidentiality agreement. The family wanted her to remain quiet and not share any personal details with the media.
Pinto-Walsh did not go away quietly. She went to probate court to enforce two handwritten wills (called “holographic” wills) that she says Kinkade wrote for her benefit in late 2011.
These two handwritten wills are interesting, to say the least. The first one, dated Nov. 11, 2011, bequeaths to Pinto-Walsh the sum of $10 million dollars “from my corporate policy” and his house and property next door “for her security.”
The second will, dated Dec. 11, 2011, includes both of these same bequests to Pinto-Walsh, but further clarifies that the $10 million gift is to be used by Pinto-Walsh to create a museum to show the public his works.
But what is most interesting about these two purported wills is not what they say, but how they are written. They are so illegible that calling them “chicken scratch” may be deemed offensive to chickens. This from a man who left behind an estate reportedly worth more than $66 million because he was so gifted in painting popular works of art.
You can read the two handwritten documents for yourself, courtesy of The Mercury News. In fact, that same publication had the wills reviewed by a handwriting expert who concluded that, unless the writer was suffering from Parkinson’s disease (and nothing suggests that Kinkade was), the author of those documents “was three sheets to the wind.”
Certainly, they don’t look like they were written by a skillful painter, unless of course he was drunk at the time.
But does this mean the wills would be invalid?
No, not necessarily. Even handwritten wills are valid in California (when signed and dated at the end, as these were), unless the person who created them was not of sound mind or created the wills due to “undue influence .”
Undue influence does not refer to the influence of alcohol. Rather, it is when someone coerces or otherwise improperly influences someone to create or change a will or other legal document. But, being drunk obviously can make someone far more susceptible to being influenced improperly.
And being drunk does not mean that the will’s author lacked the mental capacity to create a will. It’s really a question of how drunk he was and what, if anything, was said to him to convince him to write the wills.
Kinkade’s estranged widow will seek to have the two wills thrown out, arguing that there was undue influence by Pinto-Walsh and that Kinkade was not of sound mind when he wrote them due to drunkenness. Her representatives stated that Kinkade and his wife had created a “formal, written and irrevocable” estate plan previously and they will try to have the prior estate plan enforced in court.
Pinto-Walsh says the two wills do represent Kinkade’s actual wishes. She says they were shopping for engagement rings and planned to marry as soon as the divorce was finalized, and he wanted to protect her.