Legal Definitions - implied revocation of wills

Implied revocation of wills refers to a situation where a person, known as the testator, creates a new will that does not explicitly state it is canceling any previous wills, but contains provisions that are inconsistent with an earlier will. Because of these contradictions, the law presumes that the testator intended to revoke the earlier will, either entirely or just the conflicting parts. This happens when the new will's instructions cannot coexist with the old will's instructions.

• Example 1: Conflicting Gifts of Specific Assets

  Imagine a testator's first will states, "I leave my entire collection of rare stamps to my niece, Sarah." Years later, the testator creates a second will that makes no mention of the first will, but includes the clause, "I leave my entire collection of rare stamps to my nephew, David."

  How it illustrates the term: The second will does not explicitly say, "I revoke my previous will." However, it makes a gift of the exact same asset (the stamp collection) to a different person. This creates a direct inconsistency. The law would consider the gift to Sarah in the first will to be impliedly revoked by the conflicting gift to David in the second will.

• Example 2: Changes in Residuary Beneficiaries

  A testator's initial will specifies that "all the rest and residue of my estate" (meaning everything not specifically given away) should be divided equally among three named charities: Charity A, Charity B, and Charity C. Later, the testator drafts a new will that again makes no explicit revocation statement, but now directs that "all the rest and residue of my estate" should be given entirely to a single new beneficiary, the Local Animal Shelter.

  How it illustrates the term: The second will's instruction for the residuary estate directly contradicts the first will's instruction. It's impossible for both sets of instructions to be followed. Therefore, the residuary clause in the first will is impliedly revoked by the new, inconsistent residuary clause in the second will.

• Example 3: Appointment of Personal Representatives

  In their first will, a testator appoints their long-time friend, Mr. Henderson, as the executor (the person responsible for managing the estate). Several years later, after a falling out with Mr. Henderson, the testator drafts a new will. This new will does not contain a general revocation clause but states, "I appoint my daughter, Emily, as the executor of my estate."

  How it illustrates the term: The appointment of an executor is a critical administrative role. The second will's appointment of Emily directly conflicts with the first will's appointment of Mr. Henderson for the same role. This inconsistency leads to the implied revocation of Mr. Henderson's appointment in the first will, with Emily's appointment in the second will taking precedence.