Revoking Previous Wills
After language identifying who the testator is, a will usually contains a provision revoking all previous wills and any formal amendments (codicils) to those wills. This is not just a legal formality, but serves a very important function.
A "will" is properly named because it represents your intentions and commands as to how your estate is handled. Those examining your will are essentially reading it and carrying out the instructions found there.
But what if multiple documents existed, each with its own set of instructions to follow? Which instructions should be followed and which should be ignored? This is a dilemma that has occurred thousands of times and ultimately gets resolved (for better or for worse) in court.
To avoid this confusion, the legal requirement to revoke all previously made wills was developed. In this way, the slate is cleaned, so to speak, and the last will becomes the one that controls.
As long as you follow all the legal requirements for making a will, you can make a new will every day if you want. The problem of not revoking your old wills, however, can be seen in the example below.
 |
Example
When disposing of assets according to a will, the general rule is that specific bequests of a particular item to a particular person are distributed before general bequests are made. Applying this rule when multiple wills are involved can lead to the following fun legal conundrum:
Donny Dummkopf, a well meaning but dimwitted guy, made four different wills without a provision revoking any prior wills. The four wills dispose of Donny's assets as follows:
- Will 1 (dated 7/1/1990): I leave all my worldly goods to my childhood sweetheart, Darla.
- Will 2 (dated 9/2/1999): I leave my 100 shares of Apple Computer, Inc. stock to my best friend and college roommate, Bud.
- Will 3 (dated 4/1/2004, time of execution unknown): I leave my $10,000 Elves of the World figurine collection to my childhood sweetheart, Darla. I leave all my remaining worldly goods to my former wife, Heidi, whom I still love even though she ran away with that biker and all the cash and electronic equipment she could get her hands on.
- Will 4 (dated 4/1/2004, time of execution unknown): I leave all my worldly goods to my former wife, Heidi, whom I still love even though she ran away with that biker and all the cash and electronic equipment she could get her hands on.
Those mentioned in the wills could try and make the following legal arguments:
- Darla is entitled to everything based on Will 1 or, in the alternative, the figurine collection since it is specifically mentioned as going to her in Will 3.
- Bud would say the Apple stock (probably the most valuable of the lot) is his because none of the other wills directly contradict this.
- Heidi would try for it all based on the provisions of Will 4 or, in the alternative, at least everything other than the figurines based on Will 3.
The probate court would certainly resolve these issues after the estate assets are used up to pay legal fees. However, why let it get to this point if a simple will provision can eliminate the potential for a will contest?
|
|
|