Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 72. ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIPS · CHAPTER 2. UPC -- INTESTACY, WILLS, AND DONATIVE TRANSFERS · Part 5. Wills, Will Contracts, and Custody and Deposit of Wills
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 72-2-527 (2026)

Revocation By Writing Or Act

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 72
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 5
  5. 72-2-527 Revocation by writing or act

TITLE 72. ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIPS

CHAPTER 2. UPC -- INTESTACY, WILLS, AND DONATIVE TRANSFERS

Part 5. Wills, Will Contracts, and Custody and Deposit of Wills

Revocation By Writing Or Act

72-2-527. Revocation by writing or act. (1) A will or any part of a will is revoked:

(a) by executing a subsequent will that revokes the previous will or part expressly or by inconsistency; or

(b) by performing a revocatory act on the will if the testator performed the act with the intent and for the purpose of revoking the will or 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 subsection (b), "revocatory act on the will" includes burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, 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.

(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: En. 91A-2-507 by Sec. 1, Ch. 365, L. 1974; R.C.M. 1947, 91A-2-507; amd. Sec. 31, Ch. 494, L. 1993; Sec. 72-2-321, MCA 1991; redes. 72-2-527 by Code Commissioner, 1993.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2013 · leading case: In Re the Est. of Kuralt, 2000 MT 359, 15 P.3d 931.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Est. of Kuralt, 2000 MT 359, 15 P.3d 931. · cites it 2× “See Official Comments to § 72-2-527, MCA (“when the second will does not make a complete disposition of the testator’s estate, the second will is more in the nature of a codicil to the first will”).”
In Re the Est. of Hall, 2002 MT 171, 51 P.3d 1134. · cites it 2× “Because Jim directed Betty to destroy the Original Will, we also conclude that the District Court did not err in finding that these acts were acts of revocation of the Original Will under § 72-2-527, MCA. ¶18 Affirmed. CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES TRIEWEILER, COTTER and RICE…”
In Re the Est. of Harless, 2013 MT 283, 310 P.3d 550. · cites it 10× “As such, §72-2-523, MCA, does not apply; rather, §72-2-527, MCA, the statute *123 that specifically describes the method for revoking a will is applicable.”
Scottrade, Inc. v. Davenport, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (D. Mont. 2012). · cites it 2× “Although LeFeber revoked the 2007 holographic will, both by 'Voiding” it the next day and by executing two subsequent wills that superseded and revoked all prior wills, Mont. Code Ann. §§ 72-2-527 (l)(a) & (b), Davenport also claims that one of the terms of their oral contract…”
Mont. Code Ann. § 72-2-527(1)(a): 1 case
In Re the Est. of Harless, 2013 MT 283, 310 P.3d 550. “As such, §72-2-523, MCA, does not apply; rather, §72-2-527, MCA, the statute *123 that specifically describes the method for revoking a will is applicable.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 72-2-527(1)(b): 1 case
In Re the Est. of Harless, 2013 MT 283, 310 P.3d 550. “As such, §72-2-523, MCA, does not apply; rather, §72-2-527, MCA, the statute *123 that specifically describes the method for revoking a will is applicable.”
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.