This text of New Jersey § 3B:3-13 (Revocation by writing or by act.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
3B:3-13. A will or any part thereof is revoked: 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 wi
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
3B:3-13. A will or any part thereof is revoked: 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.