## Facts

- Chris Boysen executed a will in 1964 leaving most real property (a 200-acre farm) to his son Raymond, conditioned on Raymond paying his daughter Genevieve $7,000; personal property was split equally.
- The 1964 will was filed with the county clerk but was removed from custody in 1972 and later could not be located.
- In 1975, believing the 1964 will lost, Boysen executed a new will leaving all real property to Raymond conditioned on paying Genevieve one-fourth of the real property’s assessed value; the 1975 will expressly revoked all prior wills and was filed with the county court.
- Later in 1975, the 1964 will was found; Boysen then withdrew the 1975 will from the county court and destroyed the original.
- Boysen died in 1977; the real property was valued at about $600,000, making Genevieve’s share under the 1975 will about $150,000.
- Raymond offered the 1964 will for probate; Genevieve objected, asserting the 1975 will controlled despite its destruction.

## Issues

1. Whether Boysen’s destruction of the 1975 will, after rediscovery of the 1964 will, revived the 1964 will under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-509(a) so it could be admitted to probate.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the order admitting the 1964 will to probate.
- The court held the lower courts misapplied Minn. Stat. § 524.2-509(a) by treating revocation of the 1975 will as effectively establishing revival of the 1964 will.
- The court remanded for a new trial focused on whether, at the time Boysen revoked the 1975 will, he intended the 1964 will to take effect as executed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-509(a), a prior will that was revoked by a later will is not revived merely because the later will is revoked.
- Revival requires evidence—drawn from the circumstances of revoking the later will or from the testator’s contemporary or subsequent declarations—that the testator intended the earlier will to take effect as executed.
- The controlling inquiry is the testator’s intent at the time of revocation of the later will; revocation can support competing inferences (revival, intestacy, or intent to execute another will).
- If a probate court’s findings were made under an incorrect legal standard, remand for a new trial may be required to develop and evaluate evidence under the correct statutory test.

## Conclusion

Because the record and findings did not apply the statutory requirement of proving intent to revive at the time the later will was revoked, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed admission of the 1964 will and remanded for a new trial to determine Boysen’s intent under Minn. Stat. § 524.2-509(a).


In re Estate of Boysen, 309 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1981)