## Facts

- M. Lou Bowen Kroll executed a properly signed and witnessed will (Sept. 4, 1932) and codicil (Sept. 15, 1932).
- The executor kept the will, and Kroll’s attorney kept the codicil.
- On Sept. 19, 1932, Kroll summoned the executor and attorney to her home, had the will and codicil produced, and directed the attorney to destroy both documents.
- The attorney suggested keeping the documents as memoranda in case Kroll later made a new will; Kroll agreed.
- The attorney wrote notations on the back of the will’s cover and on the back of the codicil sheet stating, in substance, that each was “null and void” and would be held as a memorandum; Kroll signed the notations.
- The notations were not in Kroll’s handwriting (aside from her signature), were not witnessed, and did not cross, touch, or deface the dispositive text of the will or codicil.
- Kroll died on Oct. 2, 1932 without executing a new will.
- Beneficiaries offered the will and codicil for probate; the jury found the instruments were Kroll’s last will and testament, and the circuit court admitted them to probate.
- The heirs at law sought appellate review, arguing the will and codicil were revoked.

## Issues

1. Whether Kroll revoked her will and codicil by directing their destruction when they were not destroyed.
2. Whether the signed “null and void” notations constituted a statutory “cancellation” or other physical act revocation when written on the back and not affecting the will’s text.
3. Whether the notations operated as a written revocation despite not being executed with the formalities required for wills.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed the probate judgment.
- The will and codicil were not revoked.
- Kroll’s intent to revoke, without completion of a statutory revocatory act, was insufficient.
- The notations were neither an effective physical cancellation/obliteration nor a valid later revocatory writing executed with required formalities.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of a will must comply with the methods prescribed by statute; intent alone does not revoke.
- A statutory “cancellation” by physical act requires defacement or physical impact on the will’s written provisions; writing on a blank portion (including the back) that does not touch the dispositive text is not a cancellation.
- A revocation by writing must be executed with the same formalities required for a will (or otherwise satisfy applicable statutory requirements); an unwitnessed notation drafted by another and merely signed by the testator is ineffective.
- When an attempted revocation fails to meet statutory requirements, the prior will remains operative and admissible to probate.

## Conclusion

Virginia required strict statutory compliance for will revocation: because the will and codicil were neither destroyed nor physically canceled, and the “null and void” notations lacked will formalities, the instruments remained valid and were properly admitted to probate.


Thompson v. Royall, 175 S.E. 748 (Va. 1934)