Legal Definitions - mistakenly induced revocation

The term "mistakenly induced revocation" refers to a legal principle more commonly known as Dependent Relative Revocation. It applies when a person revokes their will, or a part of it, under the mistaken belief that a new will or a different legal arrangement will take its place and be effective. If that intended new arrangement or disposition fails for some reason, the law may treat the original revocation as ineffective, meaning the original will (or the revoked part) remains valid.

The core idea is that the revocation was conditional: the person would not have revoked the old document *unless* the new one was going to be valid and achieve their updated wishes. When the condition (the validity of the new arrangement) isn't met, the original revocation is undone.

• Example 1: Invalid New Will

  An elderly woman, Sarah, decides to update her will. She tears up her existing will, which left all her assets to her nephew, intending to sign a new will the next day that would divide her estate equally between her nephew and her niece. Unfortunately, Sarah passes away unexpectedly before she can sign the new will, or perhaps the new will she drafted was improperly witnessed and therefore legally invalid.

  How it illustrates the term: Sarah's act of tearing up her old will was a revocation, but it was "mistakenly induced" by her belief that a valid new will would immediately replace it. Since the new will never became legally effective, a court applying the principle of dependent relative revocation might rule that her original will was never truly revoked. Her intent was not to die without a will, but to replace one valid will with another. Because the replacement failed, the original revocation is deemed ineffective, and her nephew would still inherit under the original will.

• Example 2: Failed Alteration of a Specific Bequest

  John has a will that includes a specific gift of $50,000 to his friend, Mark. John later decides he wants to increase this gift to $75,000. He crosses out "$50,000" in his will and writes "$75,000" next to it, initialing the change. However, under the law, such an alteration to a will must be properly witnessed and executed like a new will or a codicil (an amendment to a will) to be valid. John's simple crossing out and initialing does not meet these legal requirements.

  How it illustrates the term: John's act of crossing out "$50,000" was a revocation of that specific part of the will, "mistakenly induced" by his belief that his handwritten change to "$75,000" would be legally effective. Since the intended new gift of $75,000 fails due to improper execution, a court might apply dependent relative revocation. This would mean the original revocation of the $50,000 gift is ineffective, and Mark would still receive the original $50,000 as stated in the properly executed will.

• Example 3: Revocation Based on a Mistaken Legal Belief

  Maria's will leaves a significant portion of her estate to her alma mater. She later learns about a new type of charitable trust that she believes will allow her to achieve the same charitable giving goals while also providing tax benefits for her heirs. Based on this understanding, she formally revokes her existing will, confident that the new trust will effectively manage and distribute those assets to the university. However, after her death, it is discovered that the trust she set up was improperly drafted and legally invalid, or that the assets intended for the trust were never properly transferred into it.

  How it illustrates the term: Maria's revocation of her will was "mistakenly induced" by her belief that the new charitable trust would be a valid and effective mechanism to carry out her charitable intentions. Since the new trust fails to achieve its purpose, a court might conclude that Maria would not have revoked her original will *unless* she believed the trust would work. Therefore, the original revocation could be deemed ineffective, and the provisions of her original will benefiting her alma mater would be reinstated.