2,041
edits
Changes
no edit summary
A subsequent instrument in writing that is not a subsequent will but is in compliance with the provisions of ''WESA'' (e.g. signed by two witnesses, etc.) may have the effect of revoking the will (''WESA'', s 55(1)(b)).
Where a will is revoked in this way, a wills notice should be filed with the Department of Vital Statistics to record the revocation of the will (see Section VIII.G: Filing a Wills Notice).
== B. By Destruction or Loss ==
A will may be revoked by destruction, per section 55(1)(c) of ''WESA''. There must be some physical act of destruction: “burning, tearing, or destruction of it in some other manner by the will-maker.” Though copies need not be destroyed, it would be safer to do so to ensure revocation. If a will is in the will-maker’s custody and is found destroyed, or if a lost will was last known to be in the will-maker’s custody, it will be presumed that the will-maker destroyed it. This emphasizes that it There is very important for a will -maker to keep safe custody of presumption that a lost will. If it is accidentally or otherwise lost or destroyed it may be taken to have has been destroyed by the will-maker, and thereby revoked, even though this may not have been therefore, care must be taken in storing the will-maker’s wish.
Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see Jung v Lee Estate, 2005 BCSC 1537.