112.285
Express revocation or alteration; partial revocation not valid. (1) A will may be revoked or
altered by another will.
(2) A will may be
revoked by one or more physical acts by being burned, torn, canceled,
obliterated or destroyed, with the intent and purpose of the testator of
revoking the will, by the testator, or by another person at the direction of
the testator and in the presence of the testator. The injury or destruction of
the will by a person other than the testator at the direction and in the
presence of the testator shall be proved by at least two witnesses.
(3) A partial
revocation of a provision in a will by one or more physical acts as described
in subsection (2) of this section is not a valid revocation. One or more
physical acts that affect one or more provisions of a will but not the entirety
of the will are not effective to revoke those provisions, but clear and
convincing evidence may show that the testator intended by the physical act or
acts to revoke the entirety of the will. [1969 c.591 §42; 2015 c.387 §15]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1974–2003 · leading case:
Johnstone v. Zimmer, 81 P.3d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Johnstone v. Zimmer, 81 P.3d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “275 provides that “[a] will may be revoked or altered only as provided in ORS 112.285 to 112.315.” Only ORS 112.285 is applicable to the facts of this case.”
Allen v. Hall, 974 P.2d 199 (Or. 1999).
“The legislature’s intent to occupy the field in that manner is evident, defendants contend, from the fact that the probate code limits and explicitly enumerates the permissible bases for challenging a will.”
Davis v. Howard, 527 P.2d 422 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
“ORS 112.285 is the pertinent statute and provides: “(1) A will may be revoked or altered by another will.”
Brune v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 606 P.2d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“What is sometimes known as revocation by mutilation is provided in ORS 112.285(2): "A will may be revoked by being burned, torn, canceled, obliterated or destroyed, with the intent.”
Wood v. Bettis, 880 P.2d 961 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“Immediately after Schwartz’ interview with Cooper, she returned to the attorney’s office where she was employed and made a memorandum of the visit.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 112.285(1) — 1 case
Allen v. Hall, 974 P.2d 199 (Or. 1999).
“The legislature’s intent to occupy the field in that manner is evident, defendants contend, from the fact that the probate code limits and explicitly enumerates the permissible bases for challenging a will.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 112.285(2) — 1 case
Brune v. Oregon State Bd. of Higher Educ., 606 P.2d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“What is sometimes known as revocation by mutilation is provided in ORS 112.285(2): "A will may be revoked by being burned, torn, canceled, obliterated or destroyed, with the intent.”
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.