Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Matter of Estate of Ausley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 15, 1991No. 71940Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSummers, Justice

The Court correctly expounds the applicable law on revocation of wills and the related doctrine of dependant relative revocation. I dissent only from the majority’s refusal to apply the latter doctrine to the facts before us. The beneficiaries in the old, cancelled will were the same beneficiaries as in the draft of the new, intended will. Only the percentages these beneficiaries were to receive were changed. Some seven heirs at law, all of whom will prosper from the majority’s treatment, were left out of both Mr. Ausley’s testamentary efforts.

The doctrine of dependant relative revocation, as…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Phillips v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API