A will revocation scenario: has the will been revoked if a copy exists but the original is destroyed unintentionally?

A will revocation scenario: has the will been revoked if a copy exists but the original is destroyed unintentionally?

• A. Yes, if any part of a will is destroyed, by accident or on purpose, the will is invalidated.
• B. No, her actions were not intended to revoke the will, so its terms are still valid.
• C. Maybe, the revocation depends on whether another valid will existed at her death.
• D. Yes, she has destroyed the will, even if a copy exists it is no longer valid.

Answer: (B)

Revocation requires the tester’s clear intent to revoke the will. Destroying the original by accident does not demonstrate that intent, so the instrument isn’t revoked just because a copy exists or the original was unintentionally destroyed. The will’s terms still stand unless there’s proof of a deliberate revocation or a valid later instrument that supersedes it. That’s why the better answer is that the destruction wasn’t intended to revoke, so the terms remain valid. The fact that a copy exists doesn’t automatically invalidate or revoke the original.

Revocation requires the tester’s clear intent to revoke the will. Destroying the original by accident does not demonstrate that intent, so the instrument isn’t revoked just because a copy exists or the original was unintentionally destroyed. The will’s terms still stand unless there’s proof of a deliberate revocation or a valid later instrument that supersedes it. That’s why the better answer is that the destruction wasn’t intended to revoke, so the terms remain valid. The fact that a copy exists doesn’t automatically invalidate or revoke the original.