(concurring specially).
I specially concur in this opinion because I believe that the majority and the dissent used the wrong standard of review.
Last year the South Dakota Supreme Court held that when an appellant fails to object to findings and conclusions, the scope of review is limited by the Court. In Matter of Estate of Chilton, 520 N.W.2d 910, 914 (S.D.1994) the Court noted:
The failure of an appellant to object to findings of fact and conclusions of law and to propose his or her own findings, limits review to the question of whether the findings support the conclusions of law and judgment.
Id. (citations omitted).
Thus, in the present case, the issue should be whether the trial court’s conclusions of law and order denying probate to the July 27, 1993 writing are supported by the findings of fact. Based on the trial court’s Findings of Fact VIII, supra, it is clear that the trial court’s conclusion of law, for the reasons stated in the majority opinion, is unsupported.