Ward-Allen v. Gaskins

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that revocation of a later codicil does not revive provisions of an earlier will that the codicil expressly revoked. The court further held that factual questions concerning the location and custody of the original codicil required resolution before determining whether the codicil was revoked under the presumption applicable to a missing testamentary instrument. The court reversed the probate judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Revocation of the 1995 codicil would not revive Items VI, XIII, and XIV of the 1992 will because those provisions were revoked upon execution of the properly executed codicil and were not re-executed or revived by another codicil.
2. When an original will or codicil known to have been in the testator's custody or accessible to the testator cannot be found at death, a rebuttable presumption arises that the testator destroyed it with intent to revoke it; the proponent of a copy must rebut that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. The 1992 will could not be admitted to probate in its entirety because Items VI, XIII, and XIV had been revoked by the 1995 codicil and were not revived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether revocation of the 1995 codicil would revive the provisions of the 1992 will that the codicil had expressly revoked.
2. Whether the trial court properly rejected the copy of the 1995 codicil without resolving when Ward-Allen sent the original to Mitchell and whether Creech retained access to it.
3. Whether the 1992 will could be admitted to probate in its entirety after execution of the 1995 codicil.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded