In re the Estate of Sax

6 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Collins

    117 Misc. 2d 669 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    That ultimate question always is whether the markings on the will were intended as a revocation of the complete instrument, or alternatively, were alterations or cancellations made with the intent and purpose of drawing a new will. ( Matter of Tremain, 169 Misc. 549, 558, affd 257 App. Div. 996, affd 282 N.Y. 485; Matter of Sax, 25 Misc.2d 576, 579; Matter of Akers, 74 App. Div. 461, 467, affd 173 N.Y. 620; see, generally, Ann., 24 ALR2d 514, 518-519.) In the will in issue, there is wholly absent any writings which indicate an intent on the part of the testator to revoke the will.

  2. In re Estate of Dickson

    590 So. 2d 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 7 times

    Thus, the physical acts in the instant case are sufficient to have required the trial court to permit appellant the opportunity to prove the revocation claimed. See In re Sax's Estate, 25 Misc.2d 576, 202 N.Y.S.2d 774 (N Y 1960) (manual indication sufficient where found to be physical token of inward intent). Furthermore, it is generally held that while a written revocation cannot be found when not performed in compliance with section 732.505, where words indicating an intent to revoke are written upon the will and, in addition to such circumstance there is some other act of cancellation, the words are competent evidence and may be introduced to show the intent with which the other act was performed.

  3. In re Kranz-Marks

    67 Misc. 3d 1226 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2020)

    Writing on a will that does not in any way physically obliterate it is insufficient to operate as a revocation of a will, even though the writing expresses an intention to revoke the will. See, e.g. , In re Akers' Will , 74 AD 461 (1st Dept.,1902), aff'd, 173 NY 620 (1903) (writing in margins of will, but not over text or striking text of the will, did not constitute a revocation by cancellation or obliteration); In re Sax' Estate , 25 Misc 2d 576, 577โ€”78 (Sur. Ct., New York Co., 1960) ("The statement of the testatrix that โ€˜This will is not goodโ€™, standing alone, cannot effect a revocation inasmuch as this writing was not an act performed with the essential statutory formalities"; however, the fact that each page of the will had a red letter "X" through it, as well as cross-marks over the entire attestation clause and witness signatures, sufficiently constituted a revocation).Here, Petitioners argue that the 2015 Will was revoked by the Decedent pursuant to EPTL ยง 3-4.1(b), as a result of the handwritten declarations made on the front page/cover page of the 2015 Will.

  4. In re Will of Mandel

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32429 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2019)

    To constitute a sufficient act, the markings must affect the entire will or a "vital part" thereof (see Matter of Tremain, 257 AD 996 [2d Dept 1939], affd 282 NY 485 [1940]; Matter of Baker, NYLJ, Oct. 28, 1994, at 29, col 6 [Sur Ct, NY County]). The precedents have recognized "vital" as the signature of the testator or of an attesting witness (see Matter of Tremain, 257 AD 996 [2d Dept 1939], affd 282 NY 485 [1940]); Matter of Tempone, NYLJ, May 31, 2002, at 18, col 5 [Sur Ct, NY County]; Matter of Sax, 25 Misc 2d 576 [Sur Ct, NY County 1960]), as well as "each and every dispositive provision of [the] will" (Matter of Lavigne, 76 AD2d 975 [3d Dept 1980]; Matter of Tempone, NYLJ, May 31, 2002, at 18, col 5 [Sur Ct, NY County]).

  5. Matter of Charitou

    156 Misc. 2d 952 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that revocatory acts must be performed on the original will, not on a photocopy of the original

    Lastly, a will may be revoked by a nuncupative or holographic declaration under the same circumstances which would result in a nuncupative or holographic will being valid under EPTL 3-2.2. Assuming arguendo that decedent performed all of the acts that objectants assert that she performed on February 8, 1982 and further assuming that she had performed these acts on the original rather than the photocopy of the will, the court would agree with objectants that her act of cutting out her signature with an intent to revoke the will would be sufficient under EPTL 3-4.1 (a) (2) (A) to revoke the will (39 N.Y. Jur.2d, Decedents' Estates, ยง 621, citing Matter of Monette, 282 App. Div. 987; Matter of Halpern, 32 Misc.2d 808; Matter of Sax, 25 Misc.2d 576; Matter of Rosenberg, 205 Misc. 528; Matter of McCaffrey, 174 Misc. 162; Matter of Brookman, 11 Misc. 675). Objectants argue that it is a logical extension of the provisions of SCPA 1407 and the cases construing it to conclude that a will may be revoked by acts on a photocopy thereof where the testatrix is unaware of the location of the original.

  6. Matter of Lewis

    79 Misc. 2d 610 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    However, a will is generally held to have been canceled when there have been some words of revocation actually written across the entire will or vital parts thereof ( Matter of Parsons, 236 N.Y. 580; Matter of Robinson, 201 Misc. 439; Matter of Kutzner, 173 Misc. 776; Matter of Barnes, 76 Misc. 382). Lines drawn through the signature of the testator or subscribing witnesses result in the effective obliteration of the will ( Matter of Parsons, 236 N.Y. 580, supra; Matter of Sax, 25 Misc.2d 576; Matter of Weinberger, 206 Misc. 770; Matter of Semler, 176 Misc. 687; Matter of McCaffrey, 174 Misc. 162; Matter of Griffith, 167 Misc. 366; Matter of Kuntz, 140 Misc. 598). If the markings do not affect the will in its entirety, or a vital part thereof, there is no revocation ( Matter of Tremain, 169 Misc. 549, affd. 257 App. Div. 996, affd. 282 N.Y. 485).