Prepare to be confused. Everyone else was.
On February 20, 1963, Carl Chambers signed his handwritten will. This type of will is known as a holographic will and is valid in Texas.
Under the terms of his 1963 will, Carl left almost all of his estate to his son John.
Over the next 7 years, Carl went on a will-writing spree. He signed new holographic wills on:
- May 8, 1964
- December 20, 1964
- March 26, 1968
- March 5, 1970
Understanding the Holographic Wills
Each of the four new holographic wills left the bulk of his estate to Peggy, Joann, and Carol, and provided that John would get only $1. That disposition was a significant change from Carl’s 1963 will in which he had left almost everything to John.
Importantly, in the May 1964 will Carl also included language that he was specifically revoking his prior wills. That language was not out of the ordinary; most people write a new will because they want to get rid of their prior will. This method of revoking an old will was specifically authorized by a Texas statute that stated a written will could only be revoked by a subsequent will, codicil, or declaration in writing executed with like formality.
Thus, Carl’s May 1964 will revoked his February 1963 will.
However, two of the wills he later signed also contained language that Carl was specifically revoking his prior will.
Accordingly, Carl’s May 1964 will was also revoked.
Then Carl died.
Probating a Holographic Will
John filed an application to probate the original 1963 holographic will. That was granted, and John was appointed the independent executor.
Peggy, Joann, and Carol sued to overturn the 1963 holographic will that left John everything. They argued, among other things, that Carl’s 1963 will had been revoked by his subsequent wills.
There was a problem, however. Peggy, Joann, and Carol had waited more than four years after Carl’s death to introduce copies of the subsequent wills.
Probate Law in Texas
There is a law in Texas that a will cannot be admitted to probate if the application to probate is not filed within four years after a testator dies.
That posed an interesting question: could Carl’s revoked May 1964 will that could not be admitted to probate still be used to revoke Carl’s 1963 will?
The Court held that it could. The May 1964 will was a written declaration that Carl was revoking his prior will.
That, of course, did not end the case. The Court still had to consider the “doctrine of dependent relative revocation.”
The Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation
A favorite on law school exams, the doctrine creates a presumption against revocation where a testator (in this case Carl) cancels or destroys a will with the present intention of making a new one immediately, and the new will is invalid for any reason. The theory is that the testator would prefer his old will to have his estate pass by “intestacy,” meaning to his heirs at law.
If the doctrine applied, then the 1963 will was valid because the May 1964 will was invalid. Unfortunately for John, the Court decided the doctrine did not apply because the disposition was so different between the two wills, and the revocation found in the May 1964 will was still valid.
Hammerle Finley is Here to Help With Your Will
The upshot was that Carl’s 1963 will was revoked, the four subsequent wills could not be probated and, in the absence of a valid will, Carl’s estate passed to his heirs at law. Laced throughout the Court’s opinion was the deference they gave to Carl’s documents. Why? Because Carl, you see, was a lawyer.
If you’re not a lawyer like Carl, our team of experts is here to help you with everything wills and probate. Schedule a consultation today.
Virginia Hammerle is an accredited estate planner and represents clients in estate planning, probate, guardianship, and contested litigation. She may be reached at legaltalktexas@hammerle.com. This blog contains general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
