.webp)
.png)
Revocation – i.e. the process of formally withdrawing or dismantling an otherwise established and valid will – is a concept which we haven’t discussed at any substantial length here on our blog. Just like creating a valid will, revoking a will is a procedure which depends on the fulfillment of multiple steps, and a failure to fulfill all steps in proper fashion collapses this process. The legal process of revoking a will in the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., is quite similar to the same process in Maryland, and so today we will focus on a foundational case in the law of revocation from D.C. – Estate of Liles (1981).
Essentially, this case provides us with a fascinating example of “implied” revocation: in certain circumstances, a revocation may be implied through other behaviors, and this implied revocation will be accepted as a totally valid revocation.
Facts of the Case
The couple in this case was married for a total of 30 years, and in 1972, after nearly 25 years of marriage, the husband developed a will which identified the wife as the primary beneficiary. Then, in 1975, the wife filed for divorce. As part of the final divorce decree, the husband executed a property settlement agreement in which he distributed certain assets to the wife in 1977. At the time that this settlement agreement was signed and finished, the husband hadn’t revoked the will established earlier in 1972.
The husband passed away in 1978, and the 1972 will was never revoked. Because the wife stood to gain from the will, even though she had already divorced and received her settlement, the wife attempted to admit the will to probate in D.C. on the claim that it was still valid. The contingent beneficiaries of the will – who were relatives of the husband / testator – contested this admission, arguing that the property settlement agreement from the divorce effectively superseded the will; or, more accurately, they argued that the settlement agreement was an implied revocation of the 1972 will.
The trial court ruled in favor of the wife, holding that the adoption of the settlement agreement didn’t bar the will from probate. The contingent beneficiaries then appealed.
Ruling & Post-Ruling Analysis
The appellate division – the D.C. Court of Appeals – overturned the trial court’s determination and held that the will had in fact been revoked via implied revocation. This is perhaps a non-intuitive result, and so we should highlight the court’s core reasoning: because the husband created and signed the settlement agreement, the court reasoned that this created a presumption that the 1972 will was revoked. Divorce is a process which formally disentangles the parties, and parties want to be firmly separated from their spouse following the conclusion of the divorce process. Consequently, because divorce changes the parties’ obligations to each other, this presumption which shifts the burden of proof to the spouse attempting to uphold the will is valid. However, readers need to know that this all adds up to an “implied revocation,” which means that, depending on the exact language or circumstances of the will itself, there may still be a chance to enforce the will.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Information
Readers who want to learn more about revoking a will, the technical procedure for revoking a will drafted under Maryland law, creating a valid last will & testament in Maryland, or another pertinent estate planning matter, contact one of the estate planning lawyers at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
