The pathologies of revocation by physical act

• Pages: 273-328
• Date: 01 October 2025
• Published date: 01 October 2025
• Author: Barry Cushman
• Subject Matter: Administrative & Public Law

THE PATHOLOGIES OF REVOCATION BY

PHYSICAL ACT

Barry Cushman*

Synopsis: This Article documents the various problems that are created

by the law’s recognition of the power of a testator to revoke his will in

whole or in part by physical act. It examines five different areas of law

in which such difficulties arise: ineffective attempts at revocation, the

presumption of revocation, partial revocation by physical act, dependent

relative revocation, and revival. A subsequent Article will explore the

asymmetries within the law of wills created by the persistence of revo-

cation by physical act and offer some reflections on possibilities for

reform.

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 274

II. INEFFECTIVE ATTEMPTED REVOCATION ................................... 275

A. Failure to Perform One of the Enumerated Revocatory Acts .. 276

B. Error in Performing One of the Enumerated Revocatory

Acts .......................................................................................... 277

C. Marginal Cancellation .............................................................. 278

D. Revocatory Act Performed Upon a Copy ................................ 280

E. Botched Revocation by Proxy ................................................. 281

III. THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION .......................................... 282

A. Cases in Which an Adverse Party Had Access to the Will ...... 293

B. Duplicate Wills ........................................................................ 300

IV. PARTIAL REVOCATION BY PHYSICAL ACT ................................. 305

A. Limits on Reallocation ............................................................. 309

B. Discerning Intent...................................................................... 315

V. DEPENDENT RELATIVE REVOCATION ......................................... 316

VI. REVIVAL ........................................................................................ 322

VII.CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 327

* Barry Cushman, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre

Dame. Thanks to Michael Doran and Bill LaPiana; to participants in workshops at the Law

Schools at the University of Notre Dame, the University of Georgia, the University of

Alabama, and the University of Mississippi; and to participants at the 2022 Law & Society

Association Global Meeting for valuable comments and conversation. For helpful research

assistance, I am grateful to Katie DeMamiel, Veronica Knapp, Ben Pulliam, Jacqueline

Fradette, Dwight King, Matteo Taraborrelli, Christine Logan, Shea Murphy, Christopher

Linfante, Janet Rose, and Hailey Vrdolyak.

274 60 REAL PROPERTY, TRUST AND ESTATE LAW JOURNAL

I. INTRODUCTION

The power to revoke one’s will by physical act was enshrined in

Anglo-American law in 1677 by the Statute of Frauds.1 It remains the law

in Great Britain,2 in such developed Commonwealth countries as Canada,3

Australia,4 and New Zealand, 5 and in each state of the United States of

America.6 Yet revocation by physical act is in need of reform because the

1 See Statute of Frauds 1677, 29 Car. 2 c. 3 (Eng.).

2 See Wills Act 1837, 1 Vict. c. 26, § 20 (Eng., Wales & N. Ir.).

3 See Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 767 (Can.); Succession Law Reform

Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 15(d) (Can. Ont.); The Wills Act, C.C.S.M. 2014, c. W150, s.

16(d) (Can. Man.); Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010, c. W-12.2, s. 23(1)(d) (Can. Alta.);

Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, s. 55(1)(c) (Can. B.C.); The Wills

Act, S.S. 1996, c. W-14.1, s. 16(1)(c), amended by S.S. 2022, c.22, s. 4 (Can. Sask.); Wills

Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. W-9, s. 15(d) (Can. N.B.); Wills Act, R.S.N.L. 2004, c. W-10, s.

11(c) (Can. Nfld.); Wills Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 505, s. 19(d) (Can. N.S.).

4 See Succession Act 1981 (Qld) pt 2 div 3 s 13(e) (Austl.); Succession Act 2006

(NSW) ch 2 div 5 s 11(e) (Austl.); Wills Act 1997 (Vic) pt 2 div 5 s 12(2)(f) (Austl.); Wills

Act 1936 (SA) pt 2 div 4 s 22(d) (Austl.); Wills Act 1970 (WA) pt 5 s 15(c) (Austl.).

5 See Wills Act 2007, pt 2 s 16(e) (N.Z.).

6 See ALA. CODE § 43-8-136(b); ALASKA STAT. § 13.12.507(a)(2); ARIZ. REV. STAT.

ANN. § 14-2507(A)(2); ARK. CODE ANN. § 28-25-109(a)(2); CAL. PROB. CODE § 6120(b)

(West); COLO. REV. STAT. § 15-11-507(1)(b); CONN. GEN. STAT. § 45a-257; DEL. CODE

ANN. tit. 12, § 208; FLA. STAT. § 732.506; GA. CODE ANN. § 53-4-44; HAW. REV.

STAT. § 560:2-507(a)(2); IDAHO CODE § 15-2-507(b); 755 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/4-7(a)(1);

IND. CODE § 29-1-5-6; IOWA CODE § 633.284; KAN. STAT. ANN. § 59-611; KY. REV. STAT.

ANN. § 394.080(3) (West); LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 1607(1); ME. STAT. tit. 18-C, § 2-

506(1)(B) (West); MD. CODE ANN., EST. & TRUSTS § 4-105(b)(2) (West); MASS. GEN.

LAWS ANN. ch. 190B, § 2-507(a)(2) (West); MICH. COMP. LAWS § 700.2507(1)(b); MINN.

STAT. § 524.2-507(a)(2); MISS. CODE ANN. § 91-5-3; MO. REV. STAT. § 474.400; MONT.

CODE ANN. § 72-2-527(1)(b); NEB. REV. STAT. § 30-2332(2); NEV. REV.

STAT. § 133.120(1)(a); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 551:13(I); N.J. STAT. ANN. § 3B:3-13(b)

(West); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 45-2-507(A)(3); N.Y. ES T. POWERS & TRUSTS LAW § 3-

4.1(a)(2)(A) (LexisNexis); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 31-5.1(2); N.D. CENT. CODE § 30.1-08-

07(1)(b); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2107.33(A)(1)-(3) (West); OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit.

84, § 101(2); OR. REV. STAT. § 112.285(2); 20 PA. STAT. AND CONS. STAT. § 2505(3); 33

R.I. GEN. LAWS § 33-5-10; S.C. CODE ANN. § 62-2-506(a)(2); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 29A-

2-507(a)(2); TENN. CODE ANN. § 32-1-201(3); TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 253.002 (West);

UTAH CODE ANN. § 75-2-507(1)(b) (LexisNexis); VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 14, § 11(a)(2); VA.

CODE ANN. § 64.2-410(A); WASH. REV. CODE § 11.12.040(1)(b); W. VA. CODE § 41-1-7;

WIS. STAT. § 853.11(1m); WYO. STAT. ANN. § 2-6-117(a)(ii); see also D.C. CODE § 18-

109(a)(2). All state statutory citations in this Article refer to the current statute unless

otherwise indicated. Revocation by physical act is also recognized by the Uniform Probate

Code (UPC) and the Restatement (Third) of Property (Wills and other Donative Transfers).

See UNIF. PROB. CODE § 2-507(a)(2) (amended 2019), 8 pt. 1 U.L.A. 222 (2013);

RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROP.: WILLS AND OTHER DONATIVE TRANSFERS § 4.1 cmt. e

(A.L.I. 1999).

FALL/WINTER 2025 PHYSICAL ACT REVOCATION 275

doctrine creates numerous perplexities in the law, is badly out of phase

with the law governing nonprobate transfers, and has become increasingly

anomalous within the law of wills itself.

In a previous article I documented the ways in which statutes author-

izing the revocation of wills by physical act are inconsistent with the law

concerning revocation of instruments of nonprobate transfer. 7 In that

article I concluded that “neither contracts with POD designations, nor bro-

kerage accounts with TOD designations, nor beneficiary deeds, nor life

insurance policies, nor annuity contracts may be revoked by physical act.” 8

Moreover, that article noted:

[I]n nearly half of the states, revocable trusts may not be revoked

by physical act, and there are no reported decisions in which a

court has held that a trust has been so revoked. The law on

nonprobate transfers thus has largely rejected the longstanding

testamentary law authorizing revocation by physical act. In an era

in which the law of wills and the law of will substitutes is

becoming increasingly harmonized, the option to revoke one’s

will by physical act has become increasingly anomalous. The

outstanding question is whether, and if so, to what extent and in

what form, that anomaly is worthy of preservation.9

This Article begins the exploration of that outstanding question by

documenting the various pathologies of revocation of wills by physical

act. An examination of the case law indicates that rules concerning such

revocations often fall short of effectuating the intent of the testator.

II. INEFFECTIVE ATTEMPTED REVOCATION

It is well known that the statutes regulating the execution of wills often

impose exacting formal requirements and that many an unfortunate testa-

tor has failed to satisfy one or more of them, with the consequence that the

purported will was not admitted to probate. Though the requirements for

revocation by physical act typically are less demanding, many courts have

held that an attempted act of revocation fell short of the requirements of

the revocation statute.

7 See Barry Cushman, The Decline of Revocation by Physical Act, 54 REAL PROP. TR.

& EST. L.J. 243 (2019).

8 Id. at 274.

9 Id.