## Facts

- Bessie Shelby executed a self-proving will in 1979 leaving most of her estate to her daughter, Louise Creekmore, who was also named executor.
- Attesting witnesses and Shelby’s physician supported that Shelby had testamentary capacity and acted without undue influence at the time of execution.
- In 1980, after a family dispute, Shelby met with an attorney and stated she did not have a will and wanted her property distributed equally among her children.
- The attorney prepared an “affidavit of revocation” stating that Shelby had no will and that, if she had unknowingly executed one, she declared it void.
- Shelby signed the affidavit; it was witnessed and notarized, but it lacked the formalities required for executing a will (including an attestation clause reflecting compliance with will-execution requirements).
- After Shelby’s death, Creekmore offered the 1979 will for probate; Shelby’s sons, Kenneth Pool and W.C. Pool, contested admission, asserting the affidavit revoked the will.
- The original will had been deposited with the county court clerk, later withdrawn, and refiled after the affidavit, prompting an appellate theory that refiling could “republish” a revoked will.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1980 “affidavit of revocation” satisfied Oklahoma’s statutory requirements for revoking a will by written instrument.
2. If revocation occurred, whether refiling the will with the court clerk could constitute republication.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion and affirmed the district court’s order admitting the 1979 will to probate.
- The court held the affidavit was legally insufficient to revoke the will because it did not comply with statutory formalities for revocation by written instrument.
- Because no valid revocation occurred, the court declined to decide whether refiling a revoked will constitutes republication.

## Legal Principles

- Under Oklahoma’s revocation statute, a will may be revoked only by (1) a subsequent will or codicil executed with will formalities, or (2) a qualifying physical act (e.g., destruction or cancellation) performed with intent to revoke.
- An instrument intended to revoke a will by writing must be executed with the same formalities required for a will; notarization or informal witnessing does not substitute for statutory will-execution requirements.
- Courts will resolve a probate dispute on dispositive statutory grounds and will not decide broader doctrinal questions (such as republication) when the predicate legal condition (a valid revocation) is absent.

## Conclusion

The court admitted the 1979 will to probate because Shelby’s later affidavit, though expressing an intent to void any prior will, failed to meet the statutory formalities required to revoke a will by written instrument, making any republication-by-refiling theory irrelevant.


Pool v. Estate of Shelby, 821 P.2d 361 (Okla. 1991)