In the Matter of the Estate of Beauregard
921 N.E.2d 954, 456 Mass. 161, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 37 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will known to be in the testator's possession cannot be found after their death, it is presumed to have been destroyed by the testator with the intent to revoke it. The proponent of the will can rebut this presumption by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the testator did not intend to revoke the will.
Facts:
- On June 11, 2003, Marc R. Beauregard (decedent) executed a will that bequeathed significant assets to Steven D. Knight.
- The decedent and Knight shared the same residential address.
- The decedent retained the original copy of his executed will in his possession.
- Five weeks later, on July 19, 2003, the decedent was murdered at the age of forty.
- Following his death, the original will could not be located.
- A copy of the will was discovered inside the decedent's home.
- The decedent was young, healthy, and fully competent at the time of his death.
- Without a valid will, the decedent's parents were his sole heirs.
Procedural Posture:
- Following Marc R. Beauregard's death, the Probate and Family Court appointed his father, Raymond L. Beauregard, as administrator of his estate.
- Steven D. Knight filed a petition in the Probate and Family Court to probate a copy of the decedent's will.
- Raymond L. Beauregard and other family members filed objections to the petition.
- The Probate and Family Court judge held an evidentiary hearing, found the will was properly executed, but concluded that Knight had failed to rebut the presumption that the missing original will had been revoked.
- The judge dismissed Knight's petition.
- Knight (appellant) appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, which affirmed the dismissal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted Knight's application for further appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the proponent of a copy of a will, last known to be in the testator's possession, successfully rebut the legal presumption of revocation by a preponderance of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, C.J.
No. The proponent of the will did not successfully rebut the presumption of revocation. When a will is traced to the testator's possession but cannot be found after death, Massachusetts law presumes the testator destroyed it with intent to revoke. The burden is on the proponent of the will to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge's finding that the presumption was not rebutted is a question of fact that an appellate court will not reverse unless it is clearly erroneous. Here, the judge considered factors such as the decedent's competency and the short time between the will's execution and his death, reasoning he was unlikely to have lost it accidentally. While other facts, like the existence of a copy, could support a different conclusion, the trial judge's determination was not clearly erroneous and must be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and affirms the long-standing Massachusetts rule regarding the presumption of revocation for lost wills. It formally adopts the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard for rebutting this presumption, aligning state law with the Restatement (Third) of Property and rejecting a higher burden of proof. The decision reinforces the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court findings of fact in will contest cases. This ruling underscores the substantial evidentiary challenge a proponent faces when attempting to probate a copy of a will, even when the circumstances of the testator's death are suspicious.
Unlock the full brief for In the Matter of the Estate of Beauregard