This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The decedent executed a will in 1984, naming his daughter as the personal representative and devising certain real property to two of his children. In 1995, the decedent signed a document titled "Revokation of Last Will and Testament," which purported to revoke the 1984 will. The decedent passed away in 1997, and a dispute arose over whether the 1984 will was valid or had been revoked by the 1995 document (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 1997: Held that the 1984 will was revoked by the 1995 document and declared the decedent to have died intestate (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Petitioner): Argued that the 1995 document did not comply with the statutory requirements for revoking a will under the Uniform Probate Code, as it was not testamentary in nature and lacked the formalities required for execution and witnessing (para 6).
- Respondents (Pro se Appellees): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the 1995 document was valid to revoke the decedent's 1984 will under the Uniform Probate Code.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the 1984 will was not properly revoked and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 13).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Bosson and Sutin JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the 1995 document did not meet the statutory requirements for revoking a will under Section 45-2-507 of the Uniform Probate Code. Specifically, the document was not testamentary in nature, as it would have taken effect immediately rather than upon the decedent's death. Additionally, the document was not executed with the formalities required for a will, as it lacked the signatures of two witnesses as mandated by Section 45-2-502 (paras 8-12). The Court emphasized that revocation of a will must strictly comply with statutory requirements, and the decedent's intent alone was insufficient to effect revocation (paras 9-10).