O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-4-47 (2019)

Effect of implied revocation

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An implied revocation extends only so far as an inconsistency exists between testamentary instruments. Any portion of a prior instrument that can stand consistently with the testamentary scheme in a subsequent instrument shall remain unrevoked.

History

Code 1981, § 53-4-47, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.

Annotations

COMMENT This section carries forward the concepts of former OCGA Sec. 53-2-75. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, § 113-406, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Implied revocation. - When the testator makes a different disposition of certain personal property bequeathed by the later will, this constitutes a revocation of the item as to this property in the former will. Cummings v. Cummings, 89 Ga. App. 529, 80 S.E.2d 204 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 113-406). If the testator gave a ring to the testator’s son by will, the testator could revoke this bequest either by conveying the ring and giving the ring to another prior to the testator’s death, so that the ring did not remain a part of the testator’s estate when

the testator died, or the testator could revoke this bequest in the will or revoke the entire will. Cummings v. Cummings, 89 Ga. App. 529, 80 S.E.2d 204 (1954) (decided under former Code 1933, § 113-406). Probate court properly denied admission to probate for a 1991 will due to an implied revocation by the 2001 will, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 53-4-42(c), as the testator’s act of replacing specific bequests in the first will with $100 bequest in the later will, and then changing the testator’s wishes regarding a residuary clause, from all to the testator’s then wife if she survived, to a division into three in the later will, impliedly revoked the first will by the later will. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 279 Ga. 282, 612 S.E.2d 274 (2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 79 Am. Jur. 2d, Wills, § 489. C.J.S. - 95 C.J.S., Wills, § 398 et seq. ALR. - Necessity that later will refer to earlier will in order to effect a revocation under statutes providing that a will may be revoked by a subsequent will declaring the revocation, 28 A.L.R. 691. Wills: cutting down estate created by absolute direction to testamentary trustee

to pay over and deliver funds by subsequent provision, making different disposition, 46 A.L.R. 781. Conflict of laws respecting revocation of will, 9 A.L.R.2d 1412. Implied revocation of will by later will or codicil, 59 A.L.R.2d 11. Probate where two or more testamentary documents, bearing the same date or undated, are proffered, 17 A.L.R.3d 603.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2006 · leading case: Harper v. Harper, 635 S.E.2d 711 (Ga. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harper v. Harper, 635 S.E.2d 711 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 53-4-47. A “testamentary instrument” is “[a]n instrument in the nature of a will; an unprobated will; a paper writing which is of the character of a will, though not formally such, and, if allowed as a testament, will have the effect of a will upon the devolution and…”

Mitchell v. Mitchell, 612 S.E.2d 274 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 53-4-47 provides that “[a]n implied revocation extends only so far as an inconsistency exists between testamentary instruments.”

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.