Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2507 (2026)

Revocation by writing or by act.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE


Act 386 of 1998


700.2507 Revocation by writing or by act.

Sec. 2507.

    (1) A will or a part of a will is revoked by either of the following acts:

    (a) Execution of a subsequent will that revokes the previous will or a part of the will expressly or by inconsistency.

    (b) 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 a part of the will or if another individual performed the act in the testator's conscious presence and by the testator's direction. For purposes of this subdivision, "revocatory act on the will" includes burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will or a part of the will. A burning, tearing, or canceling is a revocatory act on the will, whether or not the burn, tear, or cancellation touches any of the words on the will.

    (2) 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.

    (3) 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.

    (4) 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 they are not inconsistent.

History: 1998, Act 386, Eff. Apr. 1, 2000

PopularName Notes:

EPIC
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2010–2018 · leading case: In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
In re Leete Est., 803 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “MCL 700.2507. Thus, a portion of Frederick’s will was effectively revoked with respect to this particular property because the conveyance was inconsistent with the will’s provision regarding the disposition of the Mackinaw City property at Frederick’s death.”
Michael Leavine v. Linda L Gembarski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “We agree that to the extent that the 2001 document proffered by plaintiff was a valid will, it was subsequently revoked by the decedent’s 2002 will and 2010 deed-of-gift.”
Michael Leavine v. Linda L Gembarski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “We agree that to the extent that the 2001 document proffered by plaintiff was a valid will, it was subsequently revoked by the decedent’s 2002 will and 2010 deed-of-gift.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 700.2507(1)(a) — 2 cases
Michael Leavine v. Linda L Gembarski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “We agree that to the extent that the 2001 document proffered by plaintiff was a valid will, it was subsequently revoked by the decedent’s 2002 will and 2010 deed-of-gift.”
Michael Leavine v. Linda L Gembarski (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “We agree that to the extent that the 2001 document proffered by plaintiff was a valid will, it was subsequently revoked by the decedent’s 2002 will and 2010 deed-of-gift.”
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.