Luke Lantta, in the Bryan Cave Fiduciary Litigation Blog writes about Applying The Doctrine Of Dependent Relative Revocation, focusing on Mosley v. Lancaster, a Georgia Supreme Court case. His article begins as follows:
The name of the doctrine itself is something that could only be loved by trusts and estates lawyers: dependent relative revocation. The idea that it captures, however, is more intuitive. If cancellation of an old will and making of a new will are parts of the same scheme, and the cancellation of the old will is so tied to the making of the new will that its revocation is entirely dependent on a new will being made, then, if the new will is not made or is otherwise found to be invalid, the old will (though cancelled or revoked) is given its effect. In other words, if you revoke a will only as part of making a new will but the new will either doesn’t get made or is invalid, then the old will springs back into effect.
In Mosley v. Lancaster, the Georgia Supreme Court showed us how closely intertwined the revocation of an old will must be to creation of a new will in order to have the doctrine of dependent relative revocation apply.
Posted by Lewis J. Saret, Co-General Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal.