(1) A will or a part of a will is revoked by either of the following acts:
  (a) Execution of a subsequent will that revokes the previous will or a part of the will expressly or by inconsistency.

Need help with a review of a will?
Have it reviewed by a lawyer, get answers to your questions and move forward with confidence.
Connect with a lawyer now

Terms Used In Michigan Laws 700.2507

  • Estate: includes the property of the decedent, trust, or other person whose affairs are subject to this act as the property is originally constituted and as it exists throughout administration. See Michigan Laws 700.1104
  • Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
  • Testator: A male person who leaves a will at death.
  • Testator: includes an individual of either gender. See Michigan Laws 700.1107
  (b) Performance of a revocatory act on the will, if the testator performed the act with the intent and for the purpose of revoking the will or a part of the will or if another individual performed the act in the testator‘s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction. For purposes of this subdivision, “revocatory act on the will” includes burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will or a part of the will. A burning, tearing, or canceling is a revocatory act on the will, whether or not the burn, tear, or cancellation touches any of the words on the will.
  (2) If a subsequent will does not expressly revoke a previous will, the execution of the subsequent will wholly revokes the previous will by inconsistency if the testator intended the subsequent will to replace rather than supplement the previous will.
  (3) The testator is presumed to have intended a subsequent will to replace rather than supplement a previous will if the subsequent will makes a complete disposition of the testator’s estate. If this presumption arises and is not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, the previous will is revoked, and only the subsequent will is operative on the testator’s death.
  (4) The testator is presumed to have intended a subsequent will to supplement rather than replace a previous will if the subsequent will does not make a complete disposition of the testator’s estate. If this presumption arises and is not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, the subsequent will revokes the previous will only to the extent the subsequent will is inconsistent with the previous will, and each will is fully operative on the testator’s death to the extent they are not inconsistent.