Of Counsel
In a California Court of Appeal case known as the Estate of Boyajian (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 843 (court’s opinion is linked below), the Court, Fourth Appellate District, addressed how a Will may be validly revoked under the Probate Code (section 6120).
The case arose after Layla Boyajian executed a 2006 holographic Will (a fully handwritten, dated and signed Will) leaving her estate to her daughter, Anush Boyajian. Later, Layla signed a separate 2018 document prepared by her son, Robert Boyajian, stating that she revoked all prior estate-planning documents.
After Layla’s death, Robert relied on the 2018 document to argue that the 2006 Will had been revoked, while Anush contended that California law requires either a valid later Will or a physical act performed on the original Will. The appellate court agreed with Anush and reversed the trial court, holding that a stand-alone revocation page does not, by itself, cancel an existing Will.
California Probate Code section 6120 allows revocation only in two ways:
- by a subsequent Will that expressly revokes the prior Will or is inconsistent with it, or
- by a physical act performed with revocatory intent. That physical act may include burning, tearing, cancelling, obliterating, or destroying the original Will.
In practical terms, “physical cancellation” means doing something to the actual Will itself, not merely writing a new note or saying the old Will is void. Examples include tearing the document into pieces, burning it, cutting it, crossing out material terms with intent to revoke, writing “X” marks across the text in a way that clearly cancels the instrument, or otherwise obliterating the pages so the revocatory intent is apparent. The critical point is that the act must be directed at the Will and must be done by the testator (the person who wrote or signed the Will), or by another person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction.
The Court’s ruling reflects a strict approach: a separate statement of intent, even if clear, does not substitute for the statutory (legally required) methods of revocation. Layla did not physically destroy the 2006 Will, and the 2018 document was not a testamentary instrument disposing of property at death. As a result, the 2006 Will remained effective.
For clients updating an estate plan after divorce, remarriage, or other major life changes, the Boyajian case is a reminder that revocation must be done formally and carefully to avoid unintended consequences.
Source: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/G063155.PDF