Revoking a Will - the consequences for a previous Will.

[Dev'sAd]

Hi again. Yup, same ol' case. :-)

I found this: https://www.astonbond.co.uk/undoing-...tion-of-wills/

"Understanding Will Revocation: Revoking a Will essentially means cancelling or invalidating it. This can be necessary for various reasons, such as changes in personal circumstances, relationships, or financial status. It is important to note that revoking a Will effectively nullifies any instructions or provisions previously outlined in the document." (My underlining.)

Oookkkaaay! One of the opening statements in a Will contains the Revocation Clause, stating that the new Will revokes all previous Wills and codicils, ensuring that this is the most current version of the testator's wishes.

Q - if that is the case, then surely a valid revocation of the new Will also revokes the revocation of the previous Will? Ergo, the earlier Will is no longer revoked?

The new Will in this case was indisputably revoked by the author by its intentional destruction, and evidenced by their own written words. The author's intention by destroying this Will, (to retain the earlier Will) is also clear and evidenced.

So, has the revocation of the previous Will by the new one now been - itself - revoked by the destruction of the new one, which included that rev clause? Does the previous Will become the new controlling document? :-)

Thanks.

[atticus]

I disagree. Revocation is permanent, in my view, as stated in my first post in your previous thread. See s22 Wills Act 1837 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga.../26/section/22

[Pezza54]

But the second will hasn't been proved valid in the first instance, so it can't revoke the original will

The situation may be different if the second will was valid until the testator destroyed it, told someone they had destroyed it and/or made diary notes what they had done

Provided the second will had a revocation clause, and the witnesses can recall signing the will at the same time as the testator and are prepared to testify same

[Dev'sAd]

I disagree. Revocation is permanent, in my view, as stated in my first post in your previous thread. See s22 Wills Act 1837 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga.../26/section/22

Yup - that's pretty clear :-(

Thanks.

[Dev'sAd]

But the second will hasn't been proved valid in the first instance, so it can't revoke the original will

There remains that possibility, but I fear Atticus is right on this thread's issue.

[atticus]

That is not something that I fear.

[Pezza54]

There remains that possibility, but I fear Atticus is right on this thread's issue.

Atticus's post 3 on the other thread states ".....if the second will was validly made ....."
In your other thread it hasn't been established that the second will was ever valid

[atticus]

You might try accepting the premise of the question, Pezza.

[Pezza54]

OP at the start of this thread wrote "same ol case"
I assumed OP was referring to the case in their other thread
OP doesn't appear to understand that the second will had to be valid before the testator destroyed the document to revoke the original will

[Dev'sAd]

Yes, I am looking at the alternative scenario to the 'whether the second will was ever valid' argument.


Ok, going back to the Gov's paragraph:

22 No will revoked to be revived otherwise than by Re-execution or a Codicil to revive it.

No will or codicil, or any part thereof, which shall be in any manner revoked, shall be revived otherwise than by the re-execution thereof or by a codicil executed in manner herein-before required and showing an intention to revive the same; and when any will or codicil which shall be partly revoked, and afterwards wholly revoked, shall be revived, such revival shall not extend to so much thereof as shall have been revoked before the revocation of the whole thereof, unless an intention to the contrary shall be shown.

I cannot begin to get my head parts of the second paragraph, but is that the actual extract from the Wills Act, and the No 22 statement above the modern summary/interpretation of it?

We know that the written law is a blunt tool, and cannot cover every nuance. In test cases, it needs to be examined what the 'law' actually meant - what its intent was. (Is it true that there was a case after the compulsory wearing of motorbike helmets came in, one wag simply passed their arm through theirs, and wore it on their elbow? He was prosecuted successfully, as the 'lud determined what the law actually meant by 'wearing'.)

For instance, say the testator in question shredded their Will, and wrote down that they had done so intentionally in order to revoke the Will (as they have). That Will would have been revoked, yes?

Ok, now say that they changed their mind a half-hour later, got a roll of sellotape and put it all back together again, and then wrote a further explanation of what they'd now done and why, and that their intention was to keep it as the valid Will. Would that Will be valid again? Is taping it back together a 're-execution', for example?

[Pezza54]

A full copy of the original will stuck back together, still legible and properly signed, may be accepted by the Probate Registry as a valid will.
The testator's written and signed explanation of what they had done and why, would help the registry in their decision

A reason such as I misunderstood what a beneficiary said to me and in a moments anger I tore up my will. I later realised I was wrong to be so upset and with the expensive cost of drafting a new will, I sellotaped the will back together

[Dev'sAd]

OP at the start of this thread wrote "same ol case"
I assumed OP was referring to the case in their other thread
OP doesn't appear to understand that the second will had to be valid before the testator destroyed the document to revoke the original will

I do understand this, but that issue has yet to have a conclusion. So, looking at the alternative :-)

[Dev'sAd]

A full copy of the original will stuck back together, still legible and properly signed, may be accepted by the Probate Registry as a valid will.
The testator's written and signed explanation of what they had done and why, would help the registry in their decision

Would that be a 're-execution' of the Will?

[PallasAthena]

You haven't given us any of the back story dev'sad or told us your role in this so difficult to advise further. Have the Executors of the original Will applied for Probate on it? Has this been challenged?

However the fact that you got conflicting opinions from solicitors before you came here and different opinions here should tell you that there is is no simple answer to your question.

If the issues at stake and the £££ involved justify it you will need to take court action to get a judicial decision. Otherwise we just drift towards it being a debating forum - interesting in its way but unlikely to give you the definitive answer you want.

[Pezza54]

Would that be a 're-execution' of the Will?

No, the explanation letter attached to the will shows the intention of the testator to keep the original will and this may satisfy the registry

I'm not sure a shredded document stuck back together would be legible. I've never tried it