Legal Definitions - dependent relevant revocation (DRR)

Dependent Relevant Revocation (DRR) is a legal principle in the area of estates and trusts law. It addresses situations where someone attempts to revoke an existing will by creating a new one, but the new will turns out to be legally invalid for some reason.

Under DRR, if a person (the testator) revokes an old will with the intention of replacing it with a new one, and that new will is later found to be invalid, the revocation of the old will is also considered invalid. Essentially, the law presumes that the testator only intended to revoke the first will on the condition that the new will would be a valid and effective replacement. If the new will fails, the condition isn't met, and the original will remains in effect.

The primary purpose of DRR is to prevent a person's estate from being distributed as if they died without a will (intestacy) when they clearly intended to have a valid will govern the distribution of their property. It ensures that if a testator's attempt to change their will fails, their previous, valid wishes are honored rather than having their estate fall into a default legal distribution.

Here are some examples illustrating how Dependent Relevant Revocation works:

• Example 1: Improper Execution of a New Will

  Sarah had a valid will, Will A, which left her entire estate to her favorite charity. Years later, she decided to update her will to include her new grandniece, drafting Will B. Will B explicitly stated that it revoked all previous wills, including Will A. However, in her haste, Sarah forgot to have the required number of witnesses sign Will B according to her state's laws. After her death, Will B was challenged and declared invalid due to improper execution.

  How DRR applies: Without DRR, both Will A (revoked by Will B) and Will B (invalid) would be ineffective, and Sarah's estate would pass through intestacy, likely going to distant relatives she didn't intend to benefit. However, under DRR, the court presumes Sarah only revoked Will A because she believed Will B would be a valid replacement. Since Will B failed, the revocation of Will A is deemed ineffective, and Will A is reinstated. Her estate will therefore go to her favorite charity as originally intended.

• Example 2: Testator Lacked Mental Capacity for the New Will

  Robert had a long-standing will, Will X, which divided his assets equally among his three children. In his later years, after a significant decline in his cognitive abilities, he signed a new will, Will Y, which left a disproportionate amount to a new caregiver and explicitly revoked Will X. After Robert's passing, his children successfully challenged Will Y, proving that Robert lacked the necessary mental capacity (testamentary capacity) to understand the nature and effect of his actions when he signed it.

  How DRR applies: Will Y is invalid because Robert lacked the mental capacity to create it. The court applies DRR, concluding that Robert's intent to revoke Will X was dependent on Will Y being a valid expression of his wishes. Since Will Y is invalid, Will X is revived, ensuring his estate is divided equally among his children, reflecting his earlier, sound intentions.

• Example 3: Undue Influence in Creating the New Will

  Eleanor had a will, Will P, that distributed her substantial art collection to various museums. Her manipulative neighbor, sensing an opportunity, began to isolate Eleanor and pressured her into signing a new will, Will Q, which left the entire collection to the neighbor and explicitly revoked Will P. After Eleanor's death, the museums successfully challenged Will Q, demonstrating that it was created under undue influence.

  How DRR applies: Will Q is declared invalid because it was procured through undue influence. The doctrine of DRR comes into play, recognizing that Eleanor's revocation of Will P was conditional on Will Q being a legitimate and uncoerced expression of her intent. Since Will Q is invalid, Will P is revived, and Eleanor's art collection will be distributed to the museums as she originally wished.