Estate of Henry A. Lassiter, deceased, Paula Ann Masters Lassiter, administrator, C.T.A. - Page 23

                                        - 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          that the 1981 will was validly executed and had been revoked by               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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011