Dependent Relative Revocation

The concept of "dependent relative revocation" has shown up with some frequency on the MEE over the years. And so there's not much more to do but to understand it. 

There are a variety of ways to revoke a will. One such way is by executing a subsequent will, provided that such execution satisfies all of the formalities required to create any will. The subsequent will can expressly revoke the earlier will. Or, the subsequent will might not expressly revoke a prior will but any inconsistencies will be read as a revocation of the earlier will. 

People have reasons for revoking a will. Sometimes, though, those reasons will be based on mistaken beliefs. In other words, a person might revoke will "x" only because the person believes that by doing so will "y" will take effect. It's not that person wanted no will at all; it's just that the person preferred will "y" to will "x."

And so the question then is what results when the person revokes a will thinking mistakenly that another disposition of the property will be effective but an issue with the subsequent will prevents it from taking effect. 

That's where the doctrine of "dependent relative revocation" plays its role. If a person revokes will "x" under the mistaken belief that will "y" will then take effect, and will "y" does not then take effect, the revocation fails and the previous will (here will "x") remains in effect. 

Stated slightly differently, the former will is revived when the new will is deemed invalid. The theory here is rather straightforward: the person revoked the first will on the condition that the later will would take effect, so when the later will does not take effect the condition fails and thus so does the revocation of the prior will.