Revocation:
•    Wiggins
–    Don’t execute joint wills
–    Because can be whoever survives can’t change will because considered contract
–    TX gets rid of this assumption (59A)
•    Giving up right to revoke
–    Can waive this right
–    Instead of changing joint will, can still use inter vivos trust?  – not sure
–    No gifts in Wisconsin under Chayka
•    Oursler – mutual wills
–    Constructive trust refused
•    Oral contracts – 59A – estoppel, quantum meruit, constructive trust
•    Methods of revocation – see 63; also UPC 2.507:
–    By new instrument
–    Gilbert
•    Partial revocation as to inconsistency only (implicitly – see §63 commentary)
•    Integration
•    Should just not “revoking” explicitly
–    By physical act
–    Evidentiary problems
–    Harrison
•    Either testator must destroy or must be done in testator presence in TX – 63
•    Assume testator destroyed with intent to revoke if can’t find it any more and last seen with testator – see 63 commentary
–    “Presumption” fairly weak – should be easy to rebut
–    What if someone else destroys will without testator direction?  See 63 commentary – “adversely affected”
•    Solo practitioners have a problem – firms will continue on so storing wills isn’t a problem – solo practitioners…?
•    Mutilation:
–    See Eglee
–    No partial revocation by physical act – 63,
•    Duplicate Wills:
–    Don’t execute in duplicate ever because of revocation by physical act
§63,
–    See Tolin
–    Intent to revoke but not original (thinks original)
–    NOT revoked
–    Must be original (in most states) but then will have constructive trust to execute new will
•    Testator destroying will have proof problems
•    Someone else destroys = fraud
•    Damaged/destroyed inadvertently = no revocation
–    Also results in rebuttal of revocation presumption
•    Missing wills:
–    §85
–    How to prove missing holographic will
•    Revival
–    UPC 2-509
–    Does not exist in Texas – 63,
–    Have to totally re-execute original will or republication by codicil
•    Dependent Relative Revocation
–    Not in Texas – no partial revocation in Texas
–    Schneider
–    No residuary clause = malpractice
–    Interlineation
–    “Law of second best”
•    Cancellation dependent on change being effective and if not, goes back to original