Oliver v. Union National Bank of Springfield
504 S.W.2d 647 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unattested, handwritten alteration to a will that modifies a testamentary disposition by increasing the shares of other beneficiaries is legally ineffective. Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, if a testator's revocation of part of a will is conditioned on the effectiveness of a new disposition that fails for lack of proper attestation, the original provision is restored.
Facts:
- John H. Sparling executed a valid, typewritten will that was properly signed and attested.
- A paragraph in the will directed the remainder of his trust to be divided equally among ten named beneficiaries, including his nephew, Russell Oliver.
- At a later date, Sparling used a pen to alter this paragraph on the original will.
- Sparling struck through and circled Russell Oliver's name.
- He also wrote the word "nine" over the word "ten" and the figure "9" over the figure "10".
- It was stipulated that Sparling made these changes with the specific intent to eliminate Russell Oliver as a beneficiary.
- These handwritten alterations were not signed or attested by any witnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- The will of John H. Sparling was submitted to the probate court following his death.
- A dispute arose regarding the legal effect of the handwritten alterations made to the will.
- The case was heard by the trial court, which based its judgment on the pleadings and a stipulation of facts.
- The trial court ruled that the unattested alterations constituted a valid partial revocation and eliminated Russell Oliver as a beneficiary.
- Russell Oliver, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court. The Union National Bank of Springfield is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a testator's unattested, handwritten alteration to a will, which strikes out one beneficiary and changes the number of beneficiaries, effectively revoke that beneficiary's gift, or does the doctrine of dependent relative revocation restore the original provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Billings, J.
No, the testator's unattested alteration does not effectively revoke the gift; the doctrine of dependent relative revocation restores the original provision. The alterations did more than simply revoke a gift; they constituted a new and distinct testamentary disposition because they increased the shares of the remaining nine beneficiaries. Any new disposition of property by will requires attestation by two or more witnesses as mandated by statute (§ 474.320). Because these alterations were not attested, they are legally ineffective. The court applies the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, presuming that the testator's intent to revoke the gift to Oliver was dependent upon the effectiveness of the new disposition that redistributed his share. Since the attempted new disposition is inoperative, the revocation fails, and the will as originally written remains in force. This conclusion is supported by precedent in cases like Varnon v. Varnon and Woodson v. Woodson.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the doctrine of dependent relative revocation (DRR) in Missouri and reinforces the strict statutory formalities required to alter a will. The decision establishes that an alteration that not only removes a beneficiary but also consequentially increases the shares of others is a new testamentary gift requiring formal attestation, not merely a partial revocation. This holding limits the scope of partial revocation by physical act and provides a clear framework for courts to follow when faced with unattested changes, creating a presumption that a testator would prefer their original, validly executed will over a failed attempt at modification.
