Also known as: revival · republication · revived and republished · will revival · will republication
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine allowing a testator to restore a previously revoked will to effectiveness. Revival occurs when the testator reexecutes the earlier will, executes a codicil showing intent to revive it, or revokes a later will under circumstances or declarations showing intent that the earlier will take effect.
Rhea Reynolds executed Will 2 that revoked Will 1. She later executed a codicil expressly stating intent to revive Will 1. The codicil revived the earlier will, making it her latest testamentary instrument under the doctrine.
Roland Rhodes executed Will 2 revoking Will 1. He later revoked Will 2 by act while declaring he wanted Will 1 restored. The circumstances and declaration showed intent, reviving Will 1 under UPC § 2-509.
Ruby Rivera executed Will 2 that revoked Will 1. She later reexecuted Will 1 with full formalities. The reexecution alone revived Will 1, restoring it as her operative will without need for further action.
Rachel Ramirez executed Will 2 revoking Will 1. She tore up Will 2 declaring intent that Will 1 take effect. The declaration established revival of the earlier will under the controlling intent-based rule.
Rhea Reynolds executed Will 2 that revoked Will 1. She later tore up Will 2 while declaring she wanted Will 1 back in force. The circumstances and declaration showed intent to revive Will 1, so the earlier will took effect.
On June 2, 1980, Robert Thomas filed a complaint for divorce based upon indignities. On July 22, 1980, Ruth Thomas filed an application to proceed under the new Divorce Code, which the trial court granted. On December 19, 1980, she filed a petition for counseling, and the trial court ordered the parties to participate in counseling sessions, which they completed. Robert Thomas moved out of the marital residence on March 1, 1980. On May 6, 1983, he filed an amended complaint and affidavit pursuant to Section 201(d) alleging that the parties had lived separate and apart for three years and that their marriage was irretrievably broken. On May 20, 1983, Ruth Thomas filed a counter-affidavit denying that the parties had lived separate and apart for three years. A hearing was held before the trial court on August 15, 1983. At the hearing, Robert Thomas testified that he returned to the marital residence numerous times to visit his son and that the parties engaged in sexual intercourse approximately a dozen times during the separation period. He stated that his visits were prompted by suggestions of the marriage counselor and his wife's threats to curtail his visits with their son. Ruth Thomas testified that the parties engaged in sexual intercourse approximately 33 times during the separation and that it was her feeling that the sexual activities were attempts at making the marriage work. She stated that her husband told her that he was mixed up and that she initiated a few of his visits. Both parties testified that the last sexual encounter occurred in December of 1982. On August 22, 1983, the trial court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the divorce. Appellant's exceptions to the order were dismissed by the court en banc, and the order denying the divorce was approved on October 17, 1983. This appeal timely followed.
View caseRoland Rhodes executed a will referencing a future letter. A later codicil revived and republished the will on the codicil date. The letter then satisfied the existing-document requirement for incorporation by reference.
Revival occurs by reexecuting the earlier will, by executing a codicil that shows intent to revive it, or by revoking the later will when circumstances or declarations show the testator intended the earlier will to take effect.
Yes. Republication by codicil treats the will as executed on the date of the codicil for purposes such as satisfying incorporation-by-reference requirements for documents that came into existence after the original will.
Revocation of the later will revives the earlier will if circumstances of the revocation or the testator's declarations show intent that the earlier will take effect, as provided in UPC § 2-509 and the Restatement.
…a partial or complete revocation of the will, (iii) an addition to or an alteration of the will, or (iv) a partial or complete revival of his [or her] formerly revoked will or of a formerly revoked portion of the will. See Unif. Probate Code § 2-503 (amended 1997), 8 U.L.A. 31 (Supp. 2002).