Opinion ID: 1721013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect of Changes in Will of 1945.

Text: The failure of the codicil of 1966 to refer to a specific will raises an interesting problem. The will of 1945 was executed in accordance with the statutes. It could only be revoked by complying with sec. 238.14, Stats. [5] Since there never was a physical destruction of the will of 1945, nor a validly executed later will, nor a validly executed written statement of revocation, the will of 1945 remained in full force and effect at the testatrix's death. The will of 1945 is, however, subject to the validly executed codicil of 1966. When a person has two validly executed testaments, the first one is not revoked by the second unless there is a clear statement to that effect or unless the provisions of the second testament are so clearly repugnant to the provisions of the first that they cannot stand together. See 57 Am. Jur., Wills, pp. 331, 332, sec. 474. This is especially true when the second validly executed testamentary instrument is labeled a codicil. In such instances, there is clearly no intention to revoke a prior will. When minor inconsistencies do arise between two or more valid testaments, however, the provisions of the testament executed the latest in time control. Obviously, the appointment of the executor by the codicil of 1966 controls over the executor appointed by the will of 1945. [6] If the codicil of 1966 had specifically referred to the will of 1945 or the holographic instrument, the entire testamentary document would have been republished as of the date of the codicil. The republishing of the will would validate any changes made between the execution of the will and the execution of the codicil. However, the codicil here did not republish the will of 1945 because there was no specific reference. Therefore, the court must determine the effect to be given certain changes which the testatrix made to the will of 1945 after it had been executed. The changes which the testatrix made can be divided into two types: crossouts and interlineations. This court has previously determined that interlineations subsequent to execution of a will have no effect. The will is construed as it was originally written. Estate of Beale (1962), 15 Wis. 2d 546, 113 N. W. 2d 380. The interlineations made by the testatrix occurred in Paragraphs 2 and 4 of her will. In Paragraph 2 she wrote in the name of a co-executor. This can be completely disregarded because a validly executed codicil subsequently controlled the appointment of an executor. In Paragraph 4 of the will, the testatrix originally divided the residue of her estate as follows: . . . in equal shares, unto my grandchildren, LEWIS PLISCH, NAN PLISCH, SUSAN PLISCH, JOHN ERBACH, TOM ERBACH, and MARIANA ERBACH, and my nephews, FRANK J. HOLLFELDER and WALTER HAUBOLDT, to-wit, each an equal 1/8 share . . . . Sometime after the will was executed in 1945 the testatrix wrote in Veseley above the name of Nan Plisch, Langhoff above the name Susan Plisch, and Lonsdorf after the name Mariana Erbach. These changes merely stated the married names of the beneficiaries originally named. Completely disregarding the changes makes no difference in the distribution of the estate. The testatrix made further changes by crossing out names from Paragraph 4 as it is set out above. She completely crossed out the names of Susan Plisch (and the added word Langhoff which had previously been written in), and Walter Hauboldt. Both of those persons predeceased the testatrix. The names were heavily crossed out in ink so that the original typewritten names were practically obliterated. The testatrix made one further change. Where Paragraph 4 originally stated each an equal 1/8 share, the figure 1/8 had been changed to 1/7. Subsequently the figure 1/7 was heavily crossed out in ink and the figure 1/6 was written in. The court is again faced with the problem of partial revocation. In Will of Byrne (1937), 223 Wis. 503, 271 N. W. 48, the testatrix crossed out the names of her two brothers in her residue clause. The court held that this was a sufficient partial revocation. The court commented on the Byrne Case, supra, in Will of Home (1939), 231 Wis. 227, 234, 284 N. W. 766, 285 N. W. 754: . . . The recent case of Will of Byrne . . . clearly implies that alterations in a will do not render it void and have no effect except as they operate as partial revocations. However, in Estate of Holcombe, supra, at page 650, the court stated that crossing out a beneficiary with a lightly drawn pencil mark did not indicate a finality of decision. The court then concluded, at page 651, that: . . . all pencil alterations and interlineations on the will are ineffective. (Emphasis supplied.) We hold that the heavily crossed-out names in Laura Erbach's will certainly indicated a finality of decision. We further hold that the crossing out of the names operated as a partial revocation. The only change in the will which has not been considered is the addition of 1/6 after the figures 1/8 and 1/7 were crossed out. The crossing out of 1/8 and 1/7 operates as a revocation of that part of the will. If the figure 1/6 is deleted, the will would still read each an equal share and the will lists six persons who are to share in the residue. Thus the division of the residue remains the same whether the figure 1/6 remains or not. The court has been requested to consider the problem of fees in this case. One of the respondents was a minor and a guardian ad litem was appointed. The minor would have received $500 under the holographic instrument. Under the 1945 will he receives nothing. Under sec. 251.23 (1), Stats., costs are discretionary with this court. Under sec. 324.13 (2), Stats., the court may allow compensation and expenses to a guardian ad litem out of the estate. We are of the opinion that the guardian ad litem fees and costs should be allowed out of the estate. It is our opinion that the estate of Laura Erbach should be probated under the will of 1945 with the effective alterations and interlineations, together with the codicil of 1966. By the Court. Order and judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.