Has Keith lawfully revoked his will by tearing it up and dying before it was destroyed?

Has Keith lawfully revoked his will by tearing it up and dying before it was destroyed?

• A. No, his intention and action was ineffective at invalidating the will.
• B. Yes, his intention and action serve to revoke the will.
• C. No, only if another will existed at his death.
• D. Yes, if any part of a will is destroyed, by accident or on purpose, the will is invalidated.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that a will can be revoked by destroying it with the testator’s clear intent to revoke. Tearing the will up shows both destruction of the document and the testator’s purpose to revoke it. If Keith tore up the will with the intention of revoking it, that intention paired with the act is enough to revoke the will, even if the tearing isn’t finished before death. In other words, the combination of destroying the instrument and the clear intention to revoke ends the will’s effectiveness as of the time of destruction or as soon as that intent is carried out, depending on the jurisdiction’s rules. This explains why the other ideas don’t fit. Simply having the intention to revoke without any destruction doesn’t revoke the will. Destruction without the intent to revoke would not revoke it. And revocation isn’t triggered merely by destroying part of a will by accident; there must be the testator’s intent to revoke. Here, the deliberate act of tearing the will up, done with the intent to revoke, supports the conclusion that the will was revoked.

The main idea here is that a will can be revoked by destroying it with the testator’s clear intent to revoke. Tearing the will up shows both destruction of the document and the testator’s purpose to revoke it. If Keith tore up the will with the intention of revoking it, that intention paired with the act is enough to revoke the will, even if the tearing isn’t finished before death. In other words, the combination of destroying the instrument and the clear intention to revoke ends the will’s effectiveness as of the time of destruction or as soon as that intent is carried out, depending on the jurisdiction’s rules.

This explains why the other ideas don’t fit. Simply having the intention to revoke without any destruction doesn’t revoke the will. Destruction without the intent to revoke would not revoke it. And revocation isn’t triggered merely by destroying part of a will by accident; there must be the testator’s intent to revoke. Here, the deliberate act of tearing the will up, done with the intent to revoke, supports the conclusion that the will was revoked.