Court Opinion

ID: 9733866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:19:12.772888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.167130
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority in that it is proper to presume that the October 20, 1980, will was revoked. However, I do not believe that the codicil of November 22, 1980, should be admitted to probate.
The majority relies upon MCL 700.12; MSA 27.5012, which provides in pertinent part that:
"(3) 'Will’ includes codicil and any testamentary in*639strument which merely appoints an executor or revokes or revises another will.”
I do not agree that the codicil1 in the instant case was ever intended to stand alone as a will. Our primary duty is to effectuate the intent of the testator. In re Shaw Estate, 138 Mich App 751, 754; 360 NW2d 921 (1984). We have held that it was the deceased’s intent to revoke his October 20, 1980, will. The codicil, which was written less than a month after the will, cannot be understood unless the will is read in conjunction with it. The codicil ratifies the will, which implies that as of November 22, 1980, that will was still in existence. The codicil does not revive the will.
It is true that the only elements our code requires for incorporation by reference2 are that the writing must be in existence at the time the will is written, the intent to incorporate must be shown and the writing must be identifiable. While the code does not expressly state that the document must still be in existence at the time the will is read, I believe that such a requirement is both necessary and logical.
In the instant action we are presuming that *640decedent revoked his will by destroying it. Construing what the Legislature meant by the word "revoke”, we turn to the dictionary definitions. In re Condemnation of Lands, 133 Mich App 207, 211; 349 NW2d 261 (1984). Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed, 1951) defines "revoke” as: "To annul or make void by recalling or taking back, cancel, rescind, repeal, reverse.”
Accordingly, as decedent intended to annul or cancel his will of October 20,1 would hold that this will should not be admitted to probate for any reason. If the codicil could have been admitted independently without reference to the now void will, I would have agreed to admit it.
In the instant case, to admit the codicil entails admitting the will. As the testator’s intent was to revoke his will, I find that the admission of the codicil would result in all but one of the provisions of the original will being effective. As this is contrary to the decedent’s intent, I would hold the codicil, which is so intermingled with the will as to be meaningless without it, to also have been revoked in the instant case.
I would affirm the trial court.

 Decedent’s codicil was properly signed and witnessed. The provisions are as follows:
"FIRST CODICIL TO LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF RAYMOND N. SMITH
"I, RAYMOND N. SMITH, residing in the County of Ottawa, State of Michigan, being of sound mind and memory, do make, publish and declare this to be the First Codicil to my Last Will and Testament, executed on October 20,1980, in the manner following:
"ONE: The first paragraph of Paragraph Three is hereby amended to read as follows:
" T devise to William Bowen the sum of Five Dollars.’ ”
"I hereby ratify the remaining paragraphs contained in Paragraph Three.
"TWO: I also ratify and confirm the balance of the provisions contained in my original Will dated October 20, 1980.”

 MCL 700.130; MSA 27.5130.