- 23 -
While revocation of a will cannot be established
by proof of parol declarations by the testator, * * * a
clause in a later written instrument, properly executed
by the testator, expressly revoking a former will is
not rendered ineffective merely by the loss or
destruction of the instrument which contains it, and
proof of the revocation clause in a later lost or
destroyed will may be made by parol. Probate of the
former will may be defeated upon proof of the execution
of the later writing by the testator, which contained a
clause revoking the prior will, and the loss or
destruction of the later instrument, without proof of
the rest of the contents of the lost or destroyed
instrument. * * *
The intestate heirs challenging the will in Driver v. Sheffield,
supra at 767, specifically alleged that the later will was
executed in due form and contained a clause revoking any prior
wills. Hence, based on the rule quoted above, the court reversed
an earlier decision which had dismissed the challenge. See id.
The Supreme Court of Georgia then further elucidated the meaning
of this holding by subsequently opining in another alleged
revocation case: “We note that had there been sufficient proof
that the 1981 will was validly executed and had been revoked by
destruction, the 1975 will would not have been revived absent
republication. OCGA � 53-2-73; Driver v. Sheffield, 221 Ga. 316,
85 S.E.2d 766 (1955).” Rawlins v. Hulme, 425 S.E.2d 861, 862 n.1
(Ga. 1993).
These judicial pronouncements convince us that where, as
here, a record is devoid of any evidence going to the existence
of an explicit revocation clause or the elements of proper
execution (i.e., witnesses and other formalities), or even any
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011