In re Estate of J. Douglas King

Summary

The court held that the original codicil did not independently preserve the missing will because the codicil and will functioned as a single testamentary instrument, making an inquiry into revocation necessary. It further held that the codicil and copy of the will rebutted the presumption of revocation, after which the probate court had to decide by a preponderance of the whole evidence whether the will was lost rather than destroyed. The court also held that testimony concerning the accountant’s statement was inadmissible double hearsay and remanded for reconsideration without it and for findings regarding other critical testimony.