## Facts

- Will F. Wider and his wife executed reciprocal wills on February 20, 1948, each leaving the estate to the other, with Stuart Palmer Wider as substitute beneficiary if the spouse predeceased.
- Mrs. Wider died in June 1948; her will was not offered for probate.
- Stuart Palmer Wider (not Will’s natural or adopted son) took possession of both wills shortly after Mrs. Wider’s funeral and retained them until after Will’s death on March 1, 1950.
- When Stuart offered Will’s will for probate in October 1950, the testator’s signature and the witnesses’ signatures had been neatly cut out, reinserted, and pasted to the will; a penciled notation read “May 48 W.F. Wider.”
- Stuart claimed the will was already in that condition when he retrieved it, and argued the mutilation resulted from Will’s mistake—cutting his own will while intending to destroy his deceased wife’s will.
- Floyd Bernard provided the only testimony supporting the “mistake” theory.
- Three attorneys testified that, before Mrs. Wider’s death, Will stated he had destroyed his will; one also testified that Will later identified different intended beneficiaries.

## Issues

1. Whether cutting out and re-pasting the testator’s and witnesses’ signatures constituted revocation by physical act under Florida law, requiring intent to revoke.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that the mutilation was intentional revocation rather than a mistake.
3. If the will was revoked by mutilation, whether it could be treated as valid without republication and re-execution complying with statutory formalities.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s reversal of probate.
- The court held the will was mutilated with intent and for the purpose of revocation and therefore was invalid.
- The court rejected the proponent’s “mistake” theory as unpersuasive in light of the “May 48” notation, the physical precision of the cuts, and testimony indicating the testator intended to destroy the will.
- Because the will was not republished and re-executed after revocation, it could not be admitted to probate.

## Legal Principles

- A will may be revoked by the testator (or another in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction) by burning, tearing, canceling, defacing, obliterating, or destroying it, but only if done with intent to revoke.
- Intent to revoke may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the physical alteration, contemporaneous markings indicating timing, and credible statements by the testator regarding destruction or changed testamentary plans.
- Where a will has been revoked by a physical act performed with intent to revoke, later physical restoration (such as reattaching signatures) does not revive the will absent republication and re-execution in compliance with statutory requirements.

## Conclusion

The court refused probate because the deliberate removal of the testator’s and witnesses’ signatures, corroborated by timing and extrinsic testimony, showed an intent to revoke; without statutory re-execution after revocation, the instrument remained invalid.


Wider v. Wider (In re Wider’s Estate), 62 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1952)