There’s A Reason Why There are Laws about Wills and Estates
“A man executes a will leaving his property to three people. Later, he executes a new will removing one of the heirs. Finally, he executes a third will, leaving his property to the original three people but doesn't get the will witnessed. Which will is in control?”
Is this a simple problem with a clear answer or a huge opportunity for sleight of hand? What is the real answer? If this question sounds like something from a lawyer’s bar exam, that would be about right. It sounds like the first will should be in control, since his intentions were made clear in the first will, even if it was not executed correctly. This was explained by nwi.com
in the article “Estate Planning: Will formalities are important.”
However, there are many different factors that go into determining which of these three wills should be the one that the court accepts. This is a good illustration of why a will should be prepared with the help of an estate planning attorney.
First, is the third will valid? If there were no witnesses, it seems very clear that it is not. Except for very unusual circumstances, a will is only valid if it is in writing, signed by the person who is its “creator,” which is the “testator,” and witnessed by not one but two witnesses.
The next question is, how about that second will? Is it valid? Was the second will revoked, when the third was created, even though it was not properly executed?
There are two basic ways to revoke a will: physical destruction or written instrument. If the will was not destroyed, then the revocation of the second is considered to have occurred by the creation of the third will. Most wills contain a recital revoking all previous wills and codicils, which serves as a written revocation.
However, there’s a problem. Because the third will is most likely void, then it could not have revoked the second will. Will revocations also need to be witnessed, and since the third will was not witnessed, the recital contained in the third will revoking the prior wills is also void.
It, therefore, seems that the second will is valid in this situation. We say it seems, because there may be other factors that might also make the second will invalid: we don’t have all the facts.
The lesson from this article is that when it comes to wills, trusts and estate plans, the formalities really do matter. Procedures and formalities are considered more important than intent.
Another story that illustrates that point comes from an attorney who was involved in an estate matter where the person who made the will tried to take out several beneficiaries, by taking a razor blade to the document and physically removing their names from the will. The estate battle began after he died. The intention was clear—to remove the beneficiaries from the will. However, because the proper formalities were not followed, the beneficiaries were not properly removed from the will and they received their bequests after all.
If you have a will and estate plan and you wish to make changes to it, sit down with an estate planning attorney to discuss the changes you want to make, and have the documents properly revised, following all the required steps. Don’t try to do this yourself: your wishes may not be followed otherwise.
Reference : nwi.com (March 10, 2019) “Estate Planning: Will formalities are important”
