Revocation Flashcards
What are the two essential elements for revocation of a will by destruction under the Wills Act 1837?
A. Physical destruction and revocation clause
B. Destruction of a copy and signature
C. Destruction by solicitor and capacity
D. Physical destruction and intention to revoke
D. Physical destruction and intention to revoke
Explanation: Under section 20 Wills Act 1837, a will must be physically destroyed (e.g., torn or burned) and the testator must have the intention to revoke it. One without the other is ineffective.
Jane tears up her original will after being told (incorrectly) that it is invalid. She had no intention to revoke it. What is the legal status of the will?
A. The will is valid
B. The will is invalid due to destruction
C. The will is conditionally revoked
D. The will is revoked by implication
A. The will is valid
Explanation: Destruction without the intention to revoke is not effective. The will remains valid unless both destruction and revocation intention are present.
What happens if a will is missing after the testator’s death and the testator had custody of it?
A. It is presumed revoked
B. It is presumed valid
C. It is automatically admitted to probate
D. It is revoked only if a codicil exists
A. It is presumed revoked
Explanation: If a will is missing after death and was last in the testator’s possession, the law presumes the testator destroyed it with the intention to revoke, unless rebutted.
A will contains the phrase “I declare this to be my last will.” Is this enough to revoke earlier wills?
A. No, it must expressly revoke prior wills
B. No, unless a codicil is attached
C. Yes, if it was signed
D. Yes, if it is witnessed
A. No, it must expressly revoke prior wills
Explanation: The phrase “I declare this to be my last will” does not revoke earlier wills. A proper revocation clause must include words such as “I revoke all previous wills and codicils.”
Emma creates a new will giving her car to Leo instead of her sister Zara, who was named in an earlier will. The new will does not mention Zara. What is the effect?
A. Leo takes the car
B. Zara keeps the car
C. Zara and Leo share the gift equally
D. The gift fails
A. Leo takes the car
Explanation: The later will impliedly revokes the earlier one to the extent of inconsistency. The gift to Leo overrides Zara’s earlier gift.
Which of the following does not revoke a will?
A. Marriage
B. Express revocation clause in a new will
C. Burning the original with intention
D. Writing “revoked” across a photocopy
C. Writing “revoked” across a photocopy
Explanation: Revocation by destruction must be of the original will, not a copy. Writing “revoked” is also not valid revocation.
What happens if a codicil alters a gift in a will but does not mention revocation?
A. The codicil has no effect
B. The codicil is invalid
C. The codicil impliedly revokes that clause in the will
D. The codicil revokes the whole will
C. The codicil impliedly revokes that clause in the will
Explanation: A codicil can revoke clauses by implication where it is inconsistent with the original clause, even if it does not include express revocation wording.
A testator makes a UK will and a separate will in Spain for their property there. What is crucial to avoid unintended revocation?
A. The UK will should be written in Spanish
B. Both wills must revoke each other
C. Each will should only deal with assets in its respective jurisdiction
D. Both wills must be signed in front of the same witnesses
C. Each will should only deal with assets in its respective jurisdiction
Explanation: To prevent revocation, each will must be limited to assets in the relevant country and must not attempt to revoke the other.
What is the key difference between mutual wills and mirror wills?
A. Mirror wills cannot be revoked
B. Mutual wills are always created by spouses
C. Mutual wills are legally binding on the survivor
D. Mirror wills revoke each other
C. Mutual wills are legally binding on the survivor
Explanation: Mutual wills involve an agreement that neither testator will revoke without the other’s consent. Mirror wills do not include such a binding agreement.
A testator’s will is found torn in half after their death. It was last known to be in their possession. What presumption applies?
A. It is presumed to be a draft
B. It is presumed to be revoked
C. It is presumed to be invalid due to no witnesses
D. It is presumed to be valid
B. It is presumed to be revoked
Explanation: If a will is found damaged and was in the testator’s possession, the court presumes they intended to revoke it, unless evidence shows otherwise.
What must be shown to rebut the presumption of revocation when a will is missing after the testator’s death?
A. That the will was signed
B. That a new will was made
C. That the testator lacked capacity
D. That the will was lost or destroyed without intention to revoke
D. That the will was lost or destroyed without intention to revoke
Explanation: The presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the testator did not intend to revoke the will and that it was lost or destroyed accidentally.
Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, when will a revoked gift still take effect?
A. If the revocation was not signed
B. If the replacement gift is valid
C. If the replacement gift is invalid
D. If there is no residuary clause
C. If the replacement gift is invalid
Explanation: The doctrine applies when the testator’s revocation is conditional on a new gift being effective. If the new gift fails, the original may stand.
