## Facts

- Jack Edward Garver (decedent) and his first wife, Laura Ellen Garver, had two children.
- In 1958, while living in Tennessee, decedent executed a will that named Laura as executrix and left her most of his estate.
- In July 1971, decedent and Laura divorced in Tennessee and entered a property settlement in which each released the other from “any obligations that may exist or occur in the future by virtue of the marital relationship or otherwise.”
- Under Tennessee law, a divorce accompanied by such a property settlement revokes a prior will’s provisions in favor of the former spouse; decedent’s Tennessee counsel advised him of that rule at the time.
- After the divorce, decedent moved to New Jersey, married Elizabeth Garver (the petitioner-appellant), and remained domiciled in New Jersey until his death.
- Decedent did not execute a new will or written revocation after the divorce and remarriage.
- Decedent’s estate consisted solely of personal property located in Tennessee and New York.
- Elizabeth filed an action in New Jersey Chancery Division seeking (a) a determination that the 1958 will had been revoked by the Tennessee divorce and settlement and (b) appointment as administratrix of the estate, or alternatively appointment as executrix if the will was held valid.
- The Chancery Division applied New Jersey law, concluded the will had not been revoked, and refused to appoint Elizabeth as administratrix or executrix.
- Elizabeth appealed. Laura, although aware of Elizabeth’s requests, did not argue against a finding that the will had been revoked.

## Issues

1. When a decedent dies domiciled in New Jersey leaving only personal property located outside New Jersey, does New Jersey law govern whether the decedent’s will was revoked?
2. Under the governing law, did a Tennessee divorce and property settlement revoke a Tennessee-executed will that benefited the former spouse and named her as executrix?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the Chancery Division.
- The court held that New Jersey law governed revocation because decedent was domiciled in New Jersey at death and the estate was personal property.
- Applying New Jersey’s revocation statute, the court held the will was not revoked by the Tennessee divorce and property settlement.
- Because the will remained effective, Elizabeth was not entitled to appointment as administratrix, and the court did not grant her appointment as executrix.

## Legal Principles

- Under New Jersey law, a will may be revoked only by methods authorized by statute (including physical act performed with revocatory intent, a later will or codicil, or a written revocation executed with will formalities). See N.J.S.A. 3A:3-3.
- New Jersey treats the statutory revocation scheme as expressing a strong policy against revocation by implication; divorce alone does not revoke a will absent statutory authorization.
- In New Jersey conflict-of-laws analysis for succession to movable (personal) property, the law of the decedent’s domicile at death governs, even if the property is physically located in other states.
- Although Tennessee recognizes revocation of testamentary benefits to a former spouse upon divorce accompanied by a property settlement, that rule does not control where New Jersey law governs the revocation question.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that, because Garver died domiciled in New Jersey and left only personal property, New Jersey law governed whether his 1958 Tennessee will had been revoked. New Jersey’s revocation statute allows revocation only by specified acts or instruments and does not treat divorce and a property settlement as a revocation. Accordingly, the Tennessee divorce and settlement did not revoke the will, and the trial court’s refusal to treat the estate as intestate or to appoint Elizabeth as fiduciary was affirmed.


In re Estate of Garver, 343 A.2d 817 (1975)