What Is the Difference Between a Signature and Initials in New Hampshire?

People initial documents every day and often assume initials carry the same legal effect as a signature. A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court order shows why the distinction matters. In this case, the distinction determined whether a will was valid under New Hampshire law.

Background

Anna M. Hafey died in October 2022, leaving a will. Under New Hampshire law, a valid will must be signed by the testator and two witnesses. Ms. Hafey signed her will in the presence of a notary and two witnesses. The will included no witness signature lines. Neither witness wrote her name anywhere on the document. Both witnesses initialed all three pages. The notary signed the third page on a designated notary line following the acknowledgement and affidavit used for self-proving wills.

In January 2023, the executrix filed a petition for estate administration in the New Hampshire Circuit Court and represented the decedent left a will. The court halted further proceedings until the will could be proven valid. Each witness then filed a deposition in proof of will. Both witnesses testified the drafter inadvertently omitted witness signature lines and neither witness signed her name on the will.

The circuit court needed to decide whether the witnesses’ initials satisfied the statutory requirement for witness signatures under New Hampshire law.

Circuit Court

Relying on the depositions, the circuit court ruled the witnesses did not sign the will as required by statute. The court found the witnesses did not intend their initials to serve as signatures. Instead, the initials showed the witnesses reviewed each page. The court disallowed the will and ordered the estate to proceed intestate, as if the decedent died without a will.

Supreme Court

The executrix appealed. She argued New Hampshire law does not require witnesses to sign their full names and permits a signature by mark or initials. She also argued the trial court improperly focused on witness intent rather than on the witnesses’ role in attesting to the testator’s signature. The Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, initials could satisfy the statutory requirement for a witness signature. The Court held, however, the statute still requires intent to sign.

The Court concluded the record supported the trial court’s findings. The witnesses placed initials in the same location on every page, not near the testator’s signature. Both acknowledged missing witness signature lines and confirmed neither signed her name. When asked whether the initials were intended to serve as signatures, one witness responded, “I don’t recall.” Based on this evidence, the trial court reasonably concluded the initials served only to confirm page review, not to function as signatures.

The Supreme Court found no error of law and no unsupported factual findings. The Court declined, “at this time,” to adopt a doctrine of substantial compliance for witness signatures urged by an amicus curiae. It affirmed the rulings that the will lacked two witness signatures, failed to comply with RSA 551:2, and could not be admitted to probate.

In re Estate of Anna M. Hafey, No. 2023-0644 (N.H. Jan. 23, 2026) (order). (Because the Court issued an “order” rather than an “opinion,” the ruling has no precedential authority over other cases, but it may provide guidance on how New Hampshire courts may approach similar issues in the future.)

For assistance with real estate, business matters, estate planning, probate or civil litigation, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form.  The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.