Brief Fact Summary. Trial court held that a second document made by the testator was a will that revoked one previously made. Propounder argues that the two documents can be read together and therefore the second does not revoke the first.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a testator makes two wills the second does not automatically revoke the first if the two documents can be read together without inconsistencies.
A will may be revoked by a subsequent instrument executed solely for that purpose, or by a subsequent will containing a revoking clause or provisions inconsistent with those of the previous will, or by any of the other methods prescribed by law; but the mere fact that a second will was made, although it purports to be the last, does not create a presumption that it revokes or is inconsistent with one of prior date.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Where the two wills made by the testator so inconsistent that they could not stand together and thus the first will was not revoked by the second?
Held. No. Reversed. In the second will there are not words which dispose of real property, as the first does, there is no residuary clause or clause of revocation, therefore the two wills can be read together and it is not necessary to say the that first revoked the second.
Discussion. The language “all of my effects” has not only been interpreted to include only personal property but also has been interpreted to include real property in some cases.