Master Alabama Supreme Court case on revocation of wills by physical act and the presumption of revocation when a will last in the testator's possession is not found at death. with this comprehensive case brief.
Harrison v. Bird is a staple in Wills and Trusts courses because it neatly illustrates two cornerstone doctrines governing revocation: (1) the statutory requirements for revocation by physical act, and (2) the common-law presumption that a will not found at death, and last known to be in the testator's possession, was destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke. The case forces students to parse the difference between an invalid attempt to revoke and subsequent facts that independently establish a valid revocation.
Doctrinally, the decision reminds practitioners that revocation by physical act is formal in its own way: it must be performed by the testator or, if by another, only in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction. Yet even when an attempted revocation fails those formalities, later circumstances—such as the will's disappearance while in the testator's custody—can trigger a strong presumption of revocation that the proponent must overcome. Harrison v. Bird thus serves as both a cautionary tale about informal revocations and a primer on litigating "lost or destroyed" will disputes.
621 So. 2d 972 (Ala. 1993)
Bird executed a formally valid will naming Harrison as the principal beneficiary and personal representative. Sometime thereafter, Bird telephoned her attorney and instructed him to revoke the will. Acting on that instruction, the attorney, in his office and outside Bird's presence, tore the original will into several pieces in the presence of his secretary and mailed the fragments to Bird with a cover letter stating that he had torn up the will at her direction. Bird died without executing a subsequent will. After her death, the attorney's cover letter was found among her personal effects, but the original will (or its fragments) could not be located. Harrison sought to probate a copy of the will, while Bird's heirs contested, arguing that the will had been revoked. The probate court refused probate, and the case ultimately reached the Alabama Supreme Court.
1) Does an attorney's tearing of a will at the testator's direction, but outside the testator's presence, effect a valid revocation by physical act? 2) When a will last known to be in the testator's possession cannot be found at death, does a presumption arise that the testator revoked the will, and was that presumption rebutted here?
Under Alabama law, a will may be revoked by physical act—such as tearing, burning, canceling, obliterating, or destroying—only if performed by the testator, or by another person in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction, with intent to revoke. Separately, if a will last known to be in the testator's possession cannot be found at death (or is found in a mutilated condition), a rebuttable presumption arises that the testator destroyed it with the intent to revoke; the proponent of the will bears the burden to rebut that presumption with sufficient evidence.
The attorney's destruction of the will outside Bird's presence did not itself revoke the will. However, because the will (or its fragments) could not be found at Bird's death and was last known to be in her possession, the presumption arose that Bird herself revoked it. Harrison failed to rebut that presumption. The will was therefore deemed revoked, and probate was properly denied.
The court first applied the revocation-by-physical-act statute. Although Bird directed her attorney to tear the will, the act occurred outside her presence. Because revocation by a third party requires the testator's presence and direction, the attorney's tearing did not satisfy statutory formalities and therefore did not effectuate a revocation at that moment. The analysis did not end there. The court next applied the common-law presumption of revocation. The will had been returned to Bird (as evidenced by the attorney's letter), and at her death neither the original instrument nor its fragments could be found among her effects. Where a will was last in the testator's possession and cannot be located at death, the law presumes the testator destroyed it with intent to revoke. That presumption shifts the burden to the will's proponent to show that the will's absence is consistent with nonrevocation (for example, by proving accidental loss, destruction by a third party without the testator's knowledge, or continued testamentary intent). Harrison's evidence—that the attorney previously tore the will outside Bird's presence—did not rebut the presumption, because those facts merely showed an earlier, legally ineffective attempt to revoke. Once the fragments were mailed back and under Bird's control, the subsequent disappearance of the will supported the inference that Bird herself completed the revocation. With no contrary evidence of mistake, loss, or continued intent to maintain the will, the presumption carried the day, and the court affirmed denial of probate.
Harrison v. Bird clarifies two critical points for Wills and Trusts: (1) Revocation by physical act is formal and strictly construed—direction alone is not enough unless the act occurs in the testator's presence; and (2) the missing-will presumption is powerful and can determine the outcome even when an earlier, improper destruction occurred. For students and practitioners, the case underscores the importance of memorializing revocation through compliant formalities (e.g., executing a revocation instrument or performing the physical act in the testator's presence) and, in litigation, of marshalling concrete evidence to rebut the presumption when probating a lost or destroyed will.
No. Revocation by physical act performed by a third party is valid only if done in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction, with intent to revoke. An attorney tearing up a will outside the client's presence does not satisfy the statutory requirement and is ineffective as a revocation.
If the will was last known to be in the testator's possession and cannot be located at death (or is found mutilated), the law presumes the testator destroyed it with the intent to revoke. This is a rebuttable presumption, but the burden shifts to the proponent to show nonrevocation (e.g., accidental loss, destruction by someone else without the testator's knowledge, or other evidence of continued testamentary intent).
The proponent needed evidence making it more likely than not that Bird did not revoke the will herself after receiving the fragments—such as proof that the fragments were lost or removed by someone else without her knowledge, testimony establishing Bird's continued intent to maintain the will, or other credible evidence explaining the will's absence in a manner inconsistent with revocation.
Yes, Alabama allows probate of a lost or destroyed will upon satisfactory proof of due execution and contents, but when the original was last in the testator's possession and is missing, the proponent must first overcome the presumption of revocation. Without rebutting that presumption, a copy will not be admitted.
Have the client execute a new instrument expressly revoking prior wills, or perform the revocatory physical act in the client's presence and at the client's direction, with appropriate witnesses and documentation. Follow up by securing and destroying all prior originals, and memorialize the revocation in writing to avoid later evidentiary disputes.
No. An invalid attempt (such as destruction outside the testator's presence) does not bar a later valid revocation. If subsequent facts support the presumption that the testator later destroyed the will with intent to revoke, the later revocation will control.
Harrison v. Bird is a careful exposition of how formal revocation requirements and evidentiary presumptions interact. Even though the initial physical destruction of the will did not meet statutory formalities because it occurred outside the testator's presence, later circumstances—specifically, the will's disappearance while in the testator's custody—supported the presumption that the testator ultimately revoked the will.
For law students and practitioners, the case delivers two enduring lessons: follow revocation formalities to the letter, and recognize that the missing-will presumption can be dispositive. Proper planning and documentation can prevent expensive probate contests, while thoughtful litigation strategy must focus on either invoking or rebutting the presumption with concrete, credible evidence.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →