## Facts

- Marc R. Beauregard executed a will dated June 11, 2003, which was properly witnessed by two attesting witnesses and otherwise valid.
- The Probate and Family Court found that Beauregard kept the original will in his possession (or had ready access to it).
- Beauregard was murdered about five weeks later, on July 19, 2003.
- Beauregard was about forty years old, unmarried, and had no children; absent a valid will, his parents were his sole heirs under intestacy.
- After Beauregard’s death, no one was able to locate the original will despite searching; all parties agreed the original could not be found.
- Steven D. Knight shared Beauregard’s residential address and claimed he found a copy of the June 11, 2003 will in their shared home.
- Knight petitioned to probate the copy, contending it was Beauregard’s last will and left significant assets to Knight.
- Raymond L. Beauregard (the decedent’s father), appointed administrator of the estate, opposed probate of the copy; the decedent’s mother and four siblings also filed objections.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the probate judge applied the common-law presumption that an original will last in the testator’s possession, but missing at death, was destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke.
- The probate judge concluded Knight did not rebut the presumption and dismissed the petition to probate the copy.
- The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed in a memorandum and order. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review.

## Issues

1. When an original will last known to be in the testator’s possession (or ready access) cannot be found after the testator’s death, does Massachusetts apply an evidentiary presumption that the testator destroyed it with intent to revoke?
2. Did Knight, as proponent of a copy, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decedent did not intend to revoke the will, thereby overcoming the presumption?
3. Must the will opponents plead or expressly raise the presumption of revocation for the probate judge to apply it?
4. Was the probate judge’s finding that Knight failed to rebut the presumption clearly erroneous on appellate review?

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Probate and Family Court decree dismissing Knight’s petition to probate a copy of the will.
- The court held the presumption of revocation applied because the original will was traced to the decedent’s possession or ready access and could not be located after death.
- The court held the will opponents were not required to plead or explicitly raise the presumption; it operates as an evidentiary rule the judge may apply.
- The court upheld the probate judge’s finding that Knight did not rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Because the copy was not admitted to probate, the estate was administered as intestate and passed to the decedent’s parents.

## Legal Principles

- If a will once known to exist cannot be found after the testator’s death, and it was last in the testator’s possession or readily accessible to the testator, Massachusetts applies a rebuttable presumption that the testator destroyed the will with intent to revoke.
- The presumption is rebutted if the proponent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator did not intend to revoke the will.
- The proponent need not prove exactly what happened to the missing original; the controlling question is whether the evidence shows no intent to revoke.
- The presumption functions as an evidentiary rule in will contests and need not be pleaded or separately raised by the contestants for the judge to apply it.
- A probate judge’s finding on whether the presumption was rebutted is reviewed for clear error, with deference to the judge’s weighing of evidence and credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that when a will’s original was last in the testator’s possession or available to him but cannot be found after death, the law presumes the testator destroyed it intending revocation; because the will proponent offered only a copy and did not prove by a preponderance that the decedent lacked intent to revoke, the copy was not admitted to probate and the estate passed by intestacy to the decedent’s parents.


In re Estate of Beauregard, 921 N.E.2d 954 (2010)