NRS
133.120 Other means of revocation.
1. A written will other than an electronic
will may be revoked by:
(a) Burning, tearing, cancelling or obliterating
the will, with the intention of revoking it, by the testator, or by some person
in the presence and at the direction of the testator;
(b) Another will or codicil in writing, executed
as prescribed in this chapter;
(c) An electronic will, executed as prescribed in
this chapter; or
(d) An electronic revocation that meets the
electronic requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 133.085.
2. An electronic will may be revoked by:
(a) A subsequent will, codicil, electronic will
or other writing, executed as prescribed in this chapter, that revokes all or
part of the electronic will expressly or by inconsistency;
(b) If the electronic will has been converted to
a certified paper original, burning, tearing, cancelling or obliterating the
certified paper original, with the intention of revoking the electronic will,
by the testator, or by some person in the presence and at the direction of the
testator; or
(c) An electronic revocation that meets the
electronic requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 133.085.
3. This section does not prevent the
revocation implied by law from subsequent changes in the condition or
circumstances of the testator.
[8:61:1862; B § 819; BH § 3007; C § 3078; RL § 6209;
NCL § 9912]—(NRS A 1999,
2257; 2017,
3442; 2021,
962)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1961–2012 · leading case:
State v. Palm, 272 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2012).
State v. Palm, 272 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, they assert that the 1995 letter did not expressly revoke the 1975 will or otherwise effectuate a revocation in the manner required by NRS 133.120(1). NRS 133.120(l)(b) provides that a written will may be revoked by “[ajnother will or codicil in writing, executed…”
Todora v. Todora, 554 P.2d 738 (Nev. 1976).
· cites it 3× “115, which mandates the revocation of all beneficial interests given to the testator’s former spouse in a will executed prior to divorce, contemplates the divestiture of any beneficial or equitable property interests given the former spouse, but that it does not include a…”
Shephard v. Gebo, 361 P.2d 537 (Nev. 1961).
“This rule is a result of NRS 133.120 which is derived from the English Statute of Victoria.”
In Re Krukenberg's Est., 361 P.2d 537 (Nev. 1961).
“This rule is a result of NRS 133.120 which is derived from the English Statute of Victoria.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 133.120(1) — 1 case
State v. Palm, 272 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2012).
“Specifically, they assert that the 1995 letter did not expressly revoke the 1975 will or otherwise effectuate a revocation in the manner required by NRS 133.120(1). NRS 133.120(l)(b) provides that a written will may be revoked by “[ajnother will or codicil in writing, executed…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 133.120(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Palm, 272 P.3d 668 (Nev. 2012).
“Specifically, they assert that the 1995 letter did not expressly revoke the 1975 will or otherwise effectuate a revocation in the manner required by NRS 133.120(1). NRS 133.120(l)(b) provides that a written will may be revoked by “[ajnother will or codicil in writing, executed…”
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.