California Bar Revocation
Last updated: May 2, 2026
Revocation questions are one of the highest-leverage areas to study for the California Bar. This guide breaks down the rule, the elements you need to recognize, the named traps that catch most students, and a memory aid that scales to test day. Read it once, then practice the same sub-topic adaptively in the app.
The rule
A California will may be revoked only (1) by a subsequent will or codicil that revokes the prior will expressly or by inconsistency, or (2) by a physical act—burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying—performed by the testator (or by another in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction) with the simultaneous intent to revoke. Cal. Prob. Code §6120. Dissolution of marriage automatically revokes provisions in favor of the former spouse. Cal. Prob. Code §6122. A revoked will is NOT automatically revived when the revoking instrument is itself revoked; revival requires evidence (from the circumstances of the second revocation or contemporaneous declarations) that the testator intended to revive the earlier will. Cal. Prob. Code §6123. A revocable trust is revoked according to the method specified in the trust; if the method is stated as exclusive, the settlor must follow it. Otherwise, revocation may be made by a writing (other than a will) signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee during the settlor's lifetime. Cal. Prob. Code §15401.
Elements breakdown
Revocation by Subsequent Instrument
A later validly executed will or codicil revokes a prior will to the extent it expressly revokes it or is inconsistent with it.
- Subsequent instrument validly executed
- Express revocation clause OR inconsistent disposition
- Same testator with capacity at execution
- Present intent to revoke prior will
Common examples:
- A new will containing 'I revoke all prior wills'
- A codicil that disposes of the same property differently
Revocation by Physical Act
A will is revoked when the testator performs a destructive physical act on the will with the simultaneous intent to revoke it.
- Physical act of burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying
- Performed on the will itself (or material part)
- By testator personally OR by another in testator's presence and at testator's direction
- Concurrent intent to revoke (animus revocandi)
Common examples:
- Drawing an X across signature page with intent to revoke
- Tearing the will in half
- Writing 'VOID' across each page
Revocation by Operation of Law — Dissolution of Marriage
A final judgment of dissolution or annulment automatically revokes any disposition or appointment of property to the former spouse and any nomination of the former spouse as executor, trustee, or guardian.
- Final judgment of dissolution or annulment
- Will executed before the dissolution
- Provision in favor of former spouse OR nomination of former spouse to fiduciary office
- No contrary express provision in will or property settlement
Common examples:
- Bequest to 'my wife Maria' is revoked when marriage dissolved before testator's death
- Nomination of former spouse as executor falls away
Revival of Revoked Will
California presumes against revival; a will revoked by a later instrument is revived only if the evidence shows the testator intended revival when the revoking instrument itself was revoked.
- Will One revoked by Will Two
- Will Two later revoked
- Evidence (circumstances or contemporaneous declarations) of intent to revive Will One
- Revival is the testator's actual intent, not a default
Common examples:
- Testator destroys Will Two while saying 'now my old will controls again'—revival evidence
- Testator destroys Will Two with no statement—Will One stays revoked, intestacy results
Dependent Relative Revocation (DRR)
An equitable doctrine that disregards a revocation when the testator revoked under a mistaken belief about another disposition, and the testator would have preferred the revoked disposition to the alternative result (typically intestacy).
- Testator revoked an earlier will or provision
- Revocation premised on mistaken belief (e.g., that a new will is valid)
- The mistaken alternative disposition fails
- Testator would prefer the revoked disposition to intestacy
Common examples:
- Testator tears up Will One after executing Will Two, but Will Two is invalid for lack of witnesses—DRR may revive Will One
- Testator crosses out '$10,000 to Liu' and writes '$15,000 to Liu' on a non-holographic will—the new gift fails; DRR may save the original $10,000
Revocation of Revocable Trust
A revocable trust is revoked by following any method specified in the trust; if the trust provides an exclusive method, the settlor must use it. Otherwise, by a writing (other than a will) signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee during life.
- Trust is revocable by the settlor
- Method specified in trust is followed (exclusive if so designated)
- If no exclusive method: writing signed by settlor
- Writing other than a will
- Delivered to trustee during settlor's lifetime
Common examples:
- Trust says 'revocable only by signed writing delivered to trustee'—a later will cannot revoke it
- Settlor signs revocation document and mails to trustee—effective if trust is silent on method
Lost Will Presumption
When a will last known to be in the testator's possession cannot be found at death, a rebuttable presumption arises that the testator destroyed the will with intent to revoke.
- Will was last seen in testator's possession or control
- Will cannot be located at testator's death
- Proponent must rebut presumption with evidence
- Evidence of contrary intent or accidental destruction defeats presumption
Common examples:
- Testator kept will in home safe; safe empty at death—presumption applies
- Will lost in house fire—evidence of accident rebuts presumption
Common patterns and traps
The No-Automatic-Revival Trap
Many candidates carry over a common-law instinct that destroying Will Two automatically revives Will One. California rejects this default. §6123 requires affirmative evidence that the testator intended to revive the earlier will at the moment the second instrument was revoked. Without contemporaneous declarations or strongly suggestive circumstances, the earlier will stays revoked and intestacy results.
A choice that says 'Will One is revived because Will Two was revoked' with no mention of testator intent—correct-feeling but wrong under California's anti-revival default.
The Will-Cannot-Revoke-Trust Trap
Candidates conflate wills and trusts as both being 'estate planning documents' and assume a later will can revoke an earlier inter vivos trust. Under §15401, the trust's stated method governs—often exclusively. A pour-over or revocation clause in the will is ineffective if the trust requires a writing delivered to the trustee during the settlor's lifetime.
A choice that says 'The trust was revoked because the testator's will expressly revoked it'—triggering for the careless reader, but ignoring §15401's exclusive-method rule.
The Physical-Act-Without-Intent Trap
A torn or burned will is not revoked unless the testator simultaneously intended to revoke. Accidental destruction, destruction by a stranger, or destruction performed when the testator lacked capacity does not revoke. Examiners pair a destructive act with facts (intoxication, mistaken identity of document, fire) that negate animus revocandi.
A choice that says 'The will is revoked because the testator tore it up'—stops at the act and ignores the concurrent-intent requirement.
The Dissolution Sweep Misread
Section 6122 revokes only provisions in favor of the former spouse and fiduciary nominations of the former spouse—not the entire will. Candidates over-apply the statute and assume the whole will falls. Other beneficiaries' gifts and other executor nominations remain intact.
A choice that says 'The entire will is revoked by the dissolution judgment'—overstating the §6122 sweep.
The DRR Overreach
Dependent Relative Revocation is narrow: it disregards a revocation tied to a mistaken belief about an alternative disposition, and only when the testator would prefer the revoked plan to intestacy. Candidates invoke DRR to fix any failed estate plan, including unrelated drafting errors. DRR is not a general 'save the will' doctrine.
A choice that says 'DRR applies because the testator's plan failed'—untethered to a specific mistaken-belief revocation.
How it works
Treat revocation as a two-question inquiry: (1) what method was used, and (2) was the intent to revoke present at the moment of the act. Consider Reyes, who in 2020 executes a typewritten witnessed will leaving everything to her brother. In 2023 she executes a holographic will leaving everything to her niece, with a clause revoking the 2020 will. In 2025, dying of cancer, Reyes burns the 2023 holograph in her hospital room, telling the nurse 'now my old will is back.' Under §6123, the 2020 will is not automatically revived—but Reyes's contemporaneous declaration is exactly the evidence California requires to find revival intent. If she had burned the holograph silently, the 2020 will would stay revoked and Reyes would die intestate. Now flip the facts: if Reyes had instead created a revocable inter vivos trust whose terms said 'revocable only by writing delivered to the trustee,' a later will purporting to revoke the trust would fail under §15401(a)(2). The exclusivity language locks the settlor into the prescribed channel.
Worked examples
Will the 2019 will be admitted to probate?
- A Yes, because once Patel revoked the 2022 holograph by physical act, the 2019 will was automatically revived.
- B Yes, because Patel's contemporaneous declaration shows she intended to revive the 2019 will when she revoked the 2022 holograph. ✓ Correct
- C No, because revocation by physical act requires the destructive act to be performed on the will being revived.
- D No, because California does not permit revival of a revoked will under any circumstances; Patel died intestate.
Why B is correct: Under Cal. Prob. Code §6123, a revoked will is revived only if the evidence shows the testator intended revival at the time the revoking instrument was itself revoked. Patel's statement to the caretaker—made contemporaneously with tearing up the 2022 holograph—is exactly the kind of declaration that establishes revival intent. The 2019 will is therefore restored to operative status.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: This applies the common-law automatic-revival rule that California rejects. Revocation of the second will does not automatically revive the first; intent to revive must be shown. (The No-Automatic-Revival Trap)
- C: This invents a non-existent procedural requirement. Revival under §6123 turns on intent, not on whether the destructive act was performed on the earlier will. The earlier will need not be touched at all.
- D: This overstates §6123. California does not bar revival; it bars automatic revival. Revival is permitted when the testator's intent to revive is established by the circumstances or contemporaneous declarations. (The No-Automatic-Revival Trap)
What is the most likely outcome regarding the trust assets?
- A The trust is revoked, and the assets pass to Marcus under the will, because a later validly executed will controls over an inter vivos trust.
- B The trust is revoked, but only as to assets that would have passed by intestacy; the rest remain in the trust.
- C The trust is not revoked, and the assets pass to the named trust beneficiaries, because Liu failed to follow the exclusive method specified in the trust. ✓ Correct
- D The trust is not revoked because revocable trusts can only be revoked by physical destruction of the trust instrument.
Why C is correct: Under Cal. Prob. Code §15401(a)(2), when a trust provides a method of revocation and states that method is exclusive, the settlor must comply with that method. The Liu trust required a writing signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee during life. Liu's will, no matter how clearly drafted, cannot satisfy that requirement. The trust remains in force and the assets pass to the named beneficiaries.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: This applies will-revocation logic to a trust and ignores §15401(a)(2). A will is not a 'writing delivered to the trustee during the settlor's lifetime' and cannot satisfy an exclusive trust-revocation method. (The Will-Cannot-Revoke-Trust Trap)
- B: This invents a partial-revocation rule that does not exist in §15401. The statute does not split trust assets between revoked and unrevoked categories based on intestacy hypotheticals; either the method is satisfied or it is not.
- D: Physical destruction of a trust instrument is not a recognized California method of revoking a revocable trust. Section 15401 contemplates revocation by writing, not by physical act analogous to will revocation. (The Will-Cannot-Revoke-Trust Trap)
What is the most likely outcome as to the $50,000 bequest to Olivia?
- A Olivia takes the $50,000, because partial revocation by physical act is not permitted in California.
- B Olivia takes nothing, because Reyes effectively revoked the gift by canceling it with concurrent intent to revoke that provision. ✓ Correct
- C Olivia takes the $50,000, because the marginal notation is an unwitnessed amendment that fails the formalities for a codicil.
- D Olivia takes nothing, because Reyes's marriage to Sofia automatically revoked all gifts to non-spouses under the will.
Why B is correct: Cal. Prob. Code §6120(b) authorizes revocation by 'cancellation' performed on the will with intent to revoke, and California recognizes partial revocation by physical act. Reyes drew a line through the specific bequest and wrote a contemporaneous statement of intent ('Cancel this gift') signed with his initials. The act and the intent coincide and target a discrete provision. The $50,000 falls into the residue and passes to Mateo.
Why each wrong choice fails:
- A: This misstates California law. Partial revocation by physical act is permitted under §6120; the canceled provision drops out and the remaining will stands. Some jurisdictions disallow partial revocation, but California is not one of them.
- C: The marginal note is not being offered as a new gift requiring codicil formalities; it is evidence of revocatory intent accompanying the physical act of cancellation. Revocation by physical act does not require witnessing. (The Physical-Act-Without-Intent Trap)
- D: Marriage does not automatically revoke gifts to non-spouses. Cal. Prob. Code §21610 may give an omitted spouse a share, but that is a separate doctrine and does not strip pre-existing beneficiaries of their bequests wholesale. (The Dissolution Sweep Misread)
Memory aid
BCDOT for physical act: Burn, Cancel, Destroy, Obliterate, Tear—all require concurrent intent. For revival, remember 'California Doesn't Default'—no automatic revival; the testator must show intent. For trusts: 'Method, Method, Method'—follow the method the trust prescribes; if it's exclusive, nothing else works.
Key distinction
The biggest distinction is between will revocation (Probate Code §§6120-6123) and revocable-trust revocation (§15401). Bar examiners exploit candidates who reflexively apply will-revocation principles to trusts. A will cannot revoke an inter vivos trust when the trust prescribes an exclusive method, even if the will explicitly says 'I revoke my trust.' Conversely, the trust revocation statute does not control will revocation.
Summary
In California, wills are revoked by subsequent instrument, physical act with concurrent intent, or operation of law (dissolution); revocable trusts are revoked by the method the trust prescribes—and if that method is exclusive, no other route works.
Practice revocation adaptively
Reading the rule is the start. Working California Bar-format questions on this sub-topic with adaptive selection, watching your mastery score climb in real time, and seeing the items you missed return on a spaced-repetition schedule — that's where score lift actually happens. Free for seven days. No credit card required.
Start your free 7-day trialFrequently asked questions
What is revocation on the California Bar?
A California will may be revoked only (1) by a subsequent will or codicil that revokes the prior will expressly or by inconsistency, or (2) by a physical act—burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying—performed by the testator (or by another in the testator's presence and at the testator's direction) with the simultaneous intent to revoke. Cal. Prob. Code §6120. Dissolution of marriage automatically revokes provisions in favor of the former spouse. Cal. Prob. Code §6122. A revoked will is NOT automatically revived when the revoking instrument is itself revoked; revival requires evidence (from the circumstances of the second revocation or contemporaneous declarations) that the testator intended to revive the earlier will. Cal. Prob. Code §6123. A revocable trust is revoked according to the method specified in the trust; if the method is stated as exclusive, the settlor must follow it. Otherwise, revocation may be made by a writing (other than a will) signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee during the settlor's lifetime. Cal. Prob. Code §15401.
How do I practice revocation questions?
The fastest way to improve on revocation is targeted, adaptive practice — working questions that focus on your specific weak spots within this sub-topic, getting immediate feedback, and revisiting items you missed on a spaced-repetition schedule. Neureto's adaptive engine does this automatically across the California Bar; start a free 7-day trial to see your sub-topic mastery climb in real time.
What's the most important distinction to remember for revocation?
The biggest distinction is between will revocation (Probate Code §§6120-6123) and revocable-trust revocation (§15401). Bar examiners exploit candidates who reflexively apply will-revocation principles to trusts. A will cannot revoke an inter vivos trust when the trust prescribes an exclusive method, even if the will explicitly says 'I revoke my trust.' Conversely, the trust revocation statute does not control will revocation.
Is there a memory aid for revocation questions?
BCDOT for physical act: Burn, Cancel, Destroy, Obliterate, Tear—all require concurrent intent. For revival, remember 'California Doesn't Default'—no automatic revival; the testator must show intent. For trusts: 'Method, Method, Method'—follow the method the trust prescribes; if it's exclusive, nothing else works.
What's a common trap on revocation questions?
Assuming common-law automatic revival applies in California
What's a common trap on revocation questions?
Treating a will as effective to revoke an inter vivos trust
Ready to drill these patterns?
Take a free California Bar assessment — about 30 minutes and Neureto will route more revocation questions your way until your sub-topic mastery score reflects real improvement, not luck. Free for seven days. No credit card required.
Start your free 7-day trial