Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 14-2507 (2026)

Revocation of will; requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A testator may revoke a will in whole or in part:

1. By executing a subsequent will that revokes the previous will or part expressly or by inconsistency.

2. By performing a revocatory act on the will if the testator performs the act with this intent or if another person performs the act in the testator's conscious presence and by the testator's direction. For the purposes of this paragraph, "revocatory act on the will" includes burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, rendering unreadable or destroying the will or any part of it. A burning, tearing or canceling is a revocatory act on the will whether or not the burn, tear or cancellation touched any of the words on the will.

B. 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.

C. 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 and only the subsequent will is operative on the testator's death.

D. 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 and each will is fully operative on the testator's death to the extent the wills are not inconsistent.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1978–2001 · leading case: N. Trust Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Goodman, 23 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
N. Trust Bank of Arizona, N.A. v. Goodman, 23 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 14-2507. See, e.g., In re Estate of Feir, 145 Ariz.”
Matter of Est. of Moore, 669 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 14-2507. As stated in 1 Page, Wills § 11.”
Est. of Blake v. Benza, 587 P.2d 271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “As their first argument the contestants claim that the formally executed will and codicil which were drawn by an attorney were never revoked. They argue that if the decedent intended to change the testamentary disposition of his property, he would have formally executed another…”
Sterk v. Kanter, 701 P.2d 3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 14-2507 provides: “Revocation by writing or by act A will or any part thereof is revoked by either: (1) A subsequent will which revokes the prior will or part expressly or by inconsistency.”
Matter of Est. of Ivancovich, 728 P.2d 661 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 14-2507 provides that a will or any part thereof is revoked by destruction if it is done with the intent of revoking it.”
Moore v. Schwartz, 669 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 14-2507. As stated in 1 Page, Wills § 11.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.