Legal Opinion

Hansel v. Head

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 7, 1997No. 1951859PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This case arises from a dispute over the construction of the joint will of Earl and Ernestine Head. The trial court held that an unwitnessed codicil to the will was a nullity and that an attempted partial revocation of the will by the testators had effected a revocation of the entire will. Because we conclude that the unwitnessed codicil was a nullity, but that the attempted partial revocation did not effect a revocation of the entire will, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

In 1966, Earl Head and his wife Ernestine prepared a joint will, without the benefit of legal counsel. The…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Barnewall v. MurrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  2. Lovell v. . QuitmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Woodruff v. HundleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
  4. Will of Mechler v. LuettgerodtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1944
  5. O'Connell v. O'ConnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cottingham v. McKeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  2. Beasley v. M. WellsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2010
  3. Parker v. BozianSupreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  4. Smith v. SmithCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API