Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 732.506 (2025)
Revocation by act.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
732.506 Revocation by act.—A will or codicil, other than an electronic will, is revoked by the testator, or some other person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction, by burning, tearing, canceling, defacing, obliterating, or destroying it with the intent, and for the purpose, of revocation. An electronic will or codicil is revoked by the testator, or some other person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction, by deleting, canceling, rendering unreadable, or obliterating the electronic will or codicil, with the intent, and for the purpose, of revocation, as proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Note.—Created from former s. 731.14.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1976–2016 · leading case: In Re Est. of Tolin, 622 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1993).
In Re Est. of Tolin, 622 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1993). “On appeal, the district court reversed the circuit court and held that destroying an unsigned copy of a will or codicil, even one containing a photo image of the original signature, is insufficient to revoke the original *990 will or codicil under section 732.”
In Re Est. of Dickson, 590 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “The effect of the order was also to deny a petition for revocation of probate brought by the decedent's natural daughter who claimed that the decedent had revoked the will by cancellation under section 732.506, Florida Statutes (1989).”
Taft v. Zack, 830 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “Taft, the record reflects that she did not revoke the will by an act as contemplated by section 732.506 or by a codicil or other writing as contemplated by section 732.”
Bertoglio v. Dickson, 590 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “The effect of the order was also to deny a petition for revocation of probate brought by the decedent’s natural daughter who claimed that the decedent had revoked the will by cancellation under section 732.506, Florida Statutes (1989).”
In Re Est. of Griffis, 330 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). “Specific provisions of the new Code address themselves to the issues involved in this appeal, but such provisions not being operative until after January 1, 1976, are not dispositive of this case (see in particular §§ 732.506 and 732.508, F.S.). Our disposition, therefore, is…”
Dalk v. Allen, 774 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “The supreme court held that although what the testator destroyed was an exact copy of the original codicil, believing it to be the original, the requirements of section 732.506 had not been complied with, making the intended revocation ineffective.”
In re the Est. of Tolin, 594 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). “However, the appellant raises questions, in argument, of other possible motives.”
Anderson v. McDonough, 189 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “But a third son disputed this characterization and testified to his belief that his mother had always been competent.”
Dahly v. Dahly, 866 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “§ 732.506, Fla. Stat. (2002). Strict compliance with the probate statutes is required in order to effectuate both an execution and a revocation of a will or codicil.”
Srenco v. Srenco, 549 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). “The court found that Lillian Paul’s will had not been revoked by her physical act, pursuant to section 732.506, Florida Statutes (1987).”
In re Est. of Davis, 8 Fla. Supp. 2d 45 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1981). “Section 732.506. Although it appears that decedent had the requisite intent to destroy the will, the original which was in the possession of the Personal Representative and the copy which had been kept in the attorney’s file but was returned to the decedent’s possession were…”
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.