Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneywill
will

Related Cases

Matter of Estate of Donner, 82 N.Y.2d 574, 626 N.E.2d 922, 606 N.Y.S.2d 137
View Case »
Wendland v. Wendland, 29 Wis.2d 145, 138 N.W.2d 185
View Case »
In re Mampe, 932 A.2d 954, 2007 PA Super 269
View Case »
Dilks v. Carson, 197 Okla. 128, 168 P.2d 1020, 1946 OK 108
View Case »
In re Marriage of Mortensen, Not Reported in P.3d, 2014 WL 3622197
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Roberts v. Fisher, 230 Ind. 667, 105 N.E.2d 595

Facts

John Fisher filed a complaint to establish the last will of Amy Jane Roberts, which he claimed was lost or destroyed. The will had been executed in 1942, and in 1944, Roberts expressed a desire to create a new will. Following advice from her attorney, she destroyed the ribbon copy of her will, believing she would replace it with a new one. However, no new will was executed before her death in January 1945, and a mutilated copy of the original will was found afterward.

John Fisher filed a complaint to establish the last will of Amy Jane Roberts, which he claimed was lost or destroyed.

Issue

Did Amy Jane Roberts revoke her will unconditionally, and does the dependent relative revocation doctrine apply in this case?

Did Amy Jane Roberts revoke her will unconditionally, and does the dependent relative revocation doctrine apply in this case?

Rule

A will can only be revoked if the testator, with intent to revoke, destroys or mutilates it. The dependent relative revocation doctrine applies when a testator destroys a will with the intention of replacing it with a new one, but it requires substantial evidence of that intent.

A will can only be revoked if the testator, with intent to revoke, destroys or mutilates it.

Analysis

The court found that Roberts destroyed her will with the intention to revoke it unconditionally, as there was no evidence that she intended to execute a new will immediately. The mere intention to make a new will in the future did not prevent the revocation of the old will. The court emphasized that the destruction of the will was absolute and not conditional upon the creation of a new will.

The court found that Roberts destroyed her will with the intention to revoke it unconditionally, as there was no evidence that she intended to execute a new will immediately.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that the will was unconditionally revoked and that the dependent relative revocation doctrine did not apply.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that the will was unconditionally revoked and that the dependent relative revocation doctrine did not apply.

Who won?

John Fisher prevailed in the case as the court ruled that the will was unconditionally revoked, negating his claim to establish it as lost or destroyed.

John Fisher prevailed in the case as the court ruled that the will was unconditionally revoked, negating his claim to establish it as lost or destroyed.

You must be