University:
High School
Course:
High School Law
Academic year:

2019
Views:

357

Pages:

1
Author:

esfredint7qo

Name: Thompson v. Royall Court: Date: Citation: Procedural History: Facts: 9/4/32, Kroll signed a will attested by three witnesses. Brittain, the executor was given possession of the will. A codicil dated 9/15/32 was signed by Kroll in front of two witnesses and given to Coulling, the attorney who prepared both documents. 9/19/32, at Kroll’s request Coulling and Brittain too the will and codicil to her home where she told her attorney in the presence of Brittain and another to destroy both. But instead of destroying them, at Coullings suggestion, she decided to retain them as memoranda in the event she executed a new will. On the back of the cover of the will, there was a statement handwritten by Coulling ans signed by Kroll saying that the will was null and void and only to be held by Brittain as a memorandum for another will. Same thing on the codicil except Brittain wrote it. She died 10/2/32. The will and cidicil were offered for probate. A jury found the will and codicil were valid and entered the will for probate. Issue: Was Kroll’s will revoked before her death? Holding: since her written revocation on the back of the pages did not deface, erase or mutilate the document, it is not an effective revocation. Reasoning: statute for revocation says that a will and codicil can be revoked by a subsequent will or a writing declaring an intention to revoke and executed in the same manner as a will, or by destroying the will with intent to revoke. So the written revocation has to be signed and witnessed. The notations of revocation in this case are not wholly inher handwriting and her signatures are not attested to by witnesses. So its not a revocation. The two instruments were not destroyed. You need to: Do one of the acts in the statute and there has to be intent to revoke. Both are required. In this case the act was not completed even tho there was intent to revoke so the will can be probated. Cases that did allow written revocation were supported by other acts such as crossing out sections of the will. This was a mutilation of the document that indicates physical defacement. If the words were written across the writing rather than on the back, it might be sufficient to be a revocation. But if the writing does not mutilate erase or deface the document, it can’t be a revocation.

Thompson v. Royall - Briefs for Trust and Estates

Related Documents

Recommended Documents

Description

Related Documents

Almost There!

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock