New Jersey Statutes 3B:3-13. Revocation by writing or by act
Terms Used In New Jersey Statutes 3B:3-13
- Estate: means all of the property of a decedent, minor or incapacitated individual, trust or other person whose affairs are subject to this title as the property is originally constituted and as it exists from time to time during administration. See New Jersey Statutes 3B:1-1
- 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.
a. By the execution of a subsequent will that revokes the previous will or part expressly or by inconsistency; or
b. By the 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 part or if another individual performed the act in the testator’s conscious presence and by the testator’s direction. For purposes of this subsection, “revocatory act on the will” includes burning, tearing canceling, obliterating or destroying the will or any part of it. A burning, tearing or cancelling is a “revocatory act on the will,” whether or not the burn, tear, or cancellation touched any of the words on the will.
(1) 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.
(2) 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; only the subsequent will is operative on the testator’s death.
(3) 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; each will is fully operative on the testator’s death to the extent they are not inconsistent.
L.1981, c.405, s.3B:3-13, eff. May 1, 1982; amended 2004, c.132, s.16.