Is an Online Will Legal in Oregon?

Oregon has NO holographic-will statute, and this is a verified absence rather than an unread gap: ORS chapter 112 was searched in full on 2026-08-27 and the words 'holograph' and 'nuncupative' appear zero times in it. ORS 112.235(1) requires a writing attested by at least two witnesses, with no handwriting exception, so an unwitnessed handwritten will executed in Oregon is not valid AS a holographic will. Two things soften that and neither makes one valid. ORS 112.238 is a harmless-error provision: a writing not executed in compliance with ORS 112.235 may still be treated as if it were, but only where the writing was executed before the death, the decedent signed it or directed another to sign the decedent's name and their own, and the PROPONENT establishes by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the decedent intended it as a will, a revocation, or an addition or alteration. That is a contested court petition with a heightened standard, not a form of will a person can plan around. And ORS 112.255(1) can give effect to a holographic will executed elsewhere, because a will is lawfully executed if it complies with the law of Oregon, of the testator's domicile at execution or at death, or of the place of execution at the time of execution. ORS 112.238 is filed with a petition under ORS 113.035 and interested persons have 20 days to object, so it is a contested proceeding rather than a form of will to plan around. (ORS 112.235(1); ORS 112.238)

Oregon recognizes no oral, deathbed or soldiers-and-sailors will. Established by reading rather than by not finding: ORS chapter 112 carries no nuncupative-will section (the word appears zero times in the chapter as searched on 2026-08-27), and ORS 112.235(1) opens by requiring that a will 'shall be in writing'. ORS 112.238's harmless-error route cannot reach speech either, because it applies only to a WRITING that the decedent signed or directed another to sign. (ORS 112.235(1))

Oregon has NOT adopted the Uniform Electronic Wills Act, and it went further than merely omitting one: ORS 112.235(4) says in terms that 'As used in this section and ORS 112.238, "writing" does not include an electronic record, document or image.' Because that definition reaches ORS 112.238 as well, the harmless-error route cannot rescue an electronic file either, which is the gap most states with no e-wills act still leave open. The subsection was added by 2025 Or. Laws ch. 34 section 3 (Senate Bill 168), and section 6(2) of the same act applies the amendment to a writing executed before, on or after its effective date of January 1, 2026, so long as the writing was executed by or at the direction of a decedent DYING ON OR AFTER that date. Both the effective date and the operative date have elapsed. The contrast that shows the exclusion is deliberate: ORS 112.260(5), one section away, defines 'writing' for a separate list of household items, furniture, furnishings and personal effects to INCLUDE an electronic record, document or image. (ORS 112.235(4))

Remote witnessing: not recognized. ORS 112.235(1)(a) requires the testator to sign, direct a proxy, or acknowledge the signature IN THE PRESENCE OF EACH OF THE WITNESSES, and ORS 112.235(1)(b)(A) requires each witness to see the testator sign, hear the acknowledgment, or hear or observe the direction to a proxy. Oregon defines no 'electronic presence' and has enacted no audio-video alternative to presence for will execution, so the presence the statute names is physical presence.