- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Brennan v O'Donnell
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns the question of whether a codicil to a will has the effect of reviving that will. The deceased, referred to as the Testator, died on 15 May 2015 in County Kerry. He had lived much of his working life in New York but had returned to live in Castleisland, County Kerry after retirement. The Testator executed two wills: the first in Ireland on 24 October 2006 (the "Kerry will") which disposed of his Irish assets, and the second in New York on 23 December 2008 (the "New York will") which disposed of his entire estate and expressly revoked all prior wills and codicils. Subsequently, in 2010, the Testator executed a handwritten codicil to the Kerry will in Ireland, which amended one clause relating to a bank account but affirmed all other terms of the Kerry will. The legal issue arose as to whether this codicil revived the Kerry will, which had previously been revoked by the New York will.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the codicil executed in 2010 revived the Kerry will that had been revoked by the New York will.
- Whether the codicil shows the requisite intention to revive the Kerry will under Irish law, specifically under section 87 of the Succession Act 1965.
- Whether the codicil refers to the Kerry will or the New York will.
- Whether knowledge by the Testator that the Kerry will had been revoked is necessary for revival.
- The effect of the Kerry will and its revival on the validity and operation of the New York will.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Plaintiff)
- The codicil’s failure to mention the New York will is fatal to any argument of revival, as the New York will was the last will and revoked the Kerry will.
- The codicil cannot be considered a true codicil for the purposes of section 87 because the Testator did not appear to have applied himself to the Kerry will, and the solicitor who drafted the codicil may have been unaware of the New York will.
- Express words of revival are necessary in the codicil to revive a revoked will, relying on the decision in Goldie v. Adam.
- The Testator must have intended not only to revive the Kerry will but also to revoke the New York will, which is not apparent from the codicil.
Appellee's Arguments (Defendant)
- The codicil expressly affirms the Kerry will and replaces a clause therein, demonstrating an intention to revive the Kerry will.
- The reference in the codicil to "my aforesaid last will" is properly understood as referring to the Kerry will, as it is endorsed on that document and refers to a specific clause therein.
- The language "affirm" used in the codicil is sufficient to evidence an intention to revive, analogous to "confirm" used in authorities.
- Knowledge by the Testator that the Kerry will had been revoked is not a necessary element for revival under section 87 of the Succession Act 1965.
- The Kerry will’s revival does not revoke the New York will in its entirety, as the New York will disposes of assets outside the jurisdiction and estate dealt with in the Kerry will.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Re Steele: In the Goods of Steele, May and Wilson (1868) L.R. 1 P&D 575 | Requirement that a codicil must show an intention to revive a revoked will; revival by mere implication abolished by statute. | The court adopted the principle that intention to revive must appear on the face of the codicil or be inferred with reasonable certainty. |
| Re the Goods of Davis, decd. [1952] P.279 | Intention to revive must be conveyed with reasonable certainty; extrinsic evidence admissible to explain intention. | Applied to confirm that intention may be inferred and extrinsic evidence admitted to assist construction of the codicil. |
| Goldie v. Adam & Ors [1938] P.85 | Failure of codicil to mention intervening will can negate revival; knowledge of revocation relevant. | Referenced by plaintiff to argue absence of intention to revive; court distinguished facts and statutory context. |
| McLeod v. McNab [1891] AC 471 | Use of language such as "confirm" in a codicil can evidence intention to revive a will. | Used to support that the word "affirm" in the codicil similarly evidences intention to revive. |
| Re Pearson [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1358 | Confirmation in a codicil incorporates provisions of the will except where displaced; revocation clauses updated by codicil. | Supported interpretation of affirmation in codicil as evidence of revival. |
| Re Van Cutsem [1890] 63 L.T. 252 | "Confirm" in a codicil evidences intention to revive a will. | Supported the court’s acceptance that "affirm" can be similarly effective. |
| Re Steadham (1881) 6 P.D. 205 | Whether a codicil sufficiently refers to the will to be revived; codicil can mould a will into expression of testator’s intentions. | Applied to establish that the codicil’s substitution of a clause evidences intention to affirm the Kerry will. |
| Marsh v. Marsh (1860) 1 Sw. & Tr. 528 | Mere physical annexation of a codicil to a will is insufficient to show intention to revive. | Adopted to reject argument that writing the codicil on the will alone revives it without evidence of intention. |
| Re Terrible (1858) 1 Sw. & T. | A testamentary disposition written on a revoked will can revive it if it refers to the will and is properly executed. | Considered but distinguished; court did not accept this principle as sufficient standing alone. |
| Rowe v. Law [1978] I.R. 55 | Extrinsic evidence admissible to explain or construe a will but not to contradict or vary its terms. | Applied to allow extrinsic evidence to explain the amendment in the codicil. |
| Re Earl of Caithness [1891] 7 T.L.R. 354 | Knowledge of revocation by testator not necessary to revive a will by codicil. | Supported the court’s conclusion that subjective knowledge is not essential for revival under statute. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by acknowledging that the question of revival is governed by Irish law under section 87 of the Succession Act 1965, which requires that a codicil must be duly executed and show an intention to revive the revoked will. The court reviewed the historical context, noting that common law previously allowed revival by mere execution of a codicil, but this was changed by statute to require clear intention.
The court examined whether the codicil referred to the Kerry will or the New York will, concluding that the reference to "my aforesaid last will" was to the Kerry will. This was supported by the codicil’s specific amendment of the fifth paragraph of the Kerry will, which could not correspond to the New York will's provisions.
In assessing intention, the court considered authoritative precedents that intention to revive must appear from the codicil itself either by express words or by implication from the disposition of property inconsistent with any other intention. The court accepted extrinsic evidence to explain the amendment in the codicil as admissible to assist interpretation but not to contradict the codicil’s terms.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the word "affirm" in the codicil was insufficient to evidence intention to revive, holding that "affirm" and "confirm" are equivalent in this context and that no specific formula is mandated by law. The court emphasized an objective approach to interpreting the language used, giving effect to the words in their context.
The court further held that mere physical annexation of a codicil to a will is insufficient to establish revival without evidence of intention on the face of the codicil. It also concluded that the Testator’s knowledge that the Kerry will had been revoked was not a necessary element for revival under the statute.
Addressing the plaintiff's argument that the codicil must show an intention to revoke the New York will to revive the Kerry will, the court found no statutory or case law support for requiring express words of revival or revocation. The court observed that revival does not necessarily revoke other wills dealing with different assets or jurisdictions.
Finally, the court concluded that the codicil contains sufficient evidence, both express and by inference, of an intention to revive the Kerry will, particularly given the specific amendment to a clause and the affirmation of all other terms.
Holding and Implications
The court held that the 2010 codicil did revive the 2006 Kerry will.
The effect of this decision is that the Kerry will, as revived by the codicil, remains operative with respect to the Testator’s Irish estate. However, the New York will continues to operate in respect of assets outside the jurisdiction, specifically those in New York, and has been fully administered. The ruling clarifies that revival by codicil under section 87 of the Succession Act 1965 requires clear intention but does not necessitate express words of revival or knowledge of revocation by the testator. No new precedent beyond the application of established statutory and case law principles was established, but the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of codicils and revival in Irish testamentary law.
Alert