District of Columbia: Will Revocation and Revival Requirements
The short answer
The District revokes a paper will or codicil, or any part, only by a later will, codicil, or other writing declaring the revocation and executed with will formalities, or by burning, tearing, canceling, or obliterating it with intent to revoke — by the testator or by another person in the testator's presence and by express direction and consent. A revoked instrument may be revived only by reexecution or by a codicil, and only so far as revival intent is shown. Electronic wills follow a separate 2023 chapter with a preponderance standard and a harmless-error rule. There is no divorce-revocation statute.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in District of Columbia. Ask about your specific facts and see which parts of current District of Columbia law apply, with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law and scope | D.C. Code § 18-109 (paper revocation and revival) with execution formalities in § 18-103, plus the separate Uniform Electronic Wills Act at §§ 18-901 to 18-911, whose § 18-907 supplies its own revocation rule. Title 18 covers wills, codicils, and the parts of each. No divorce, marriage, or birth revocation statute appears in Title 18 or in Title 19. |
|---|---|
| Later will, codicil, or writing | A will or codicil, or a part, may be revoked by 'a later will, codicil, or other writing declaring the revocation, executed as provided by section 18-103 or 18-107' (§ 18-109(a)(1)). Unlike most states the District does allow a separate revocation WRITING, but it must carry the same formalities as a will — in writing and signed by the testator or by another in the testator's presence and by express direction, and attested and subscribed in the testator's presence by at least two credible witnesses. Section 18-107's narrow nuncupative route reaches only a person in actual military or naval service or a mariner at sea. Revocation by a later instrument takes effect on execution of that instrument (Creech, 989 A.2d at 187). |
| Physical or electronic revoking act | Burning, tearing, canceling, or obliterating the will or codicil, or the part, 'with the intention of revoking it' (§ 18-109(a)(2)). Four acts only — 'destroying' is not on the paper list — and the section states no rule about whether the act must touch the words. Electronic wills are governed separately: § 18-907(b)(2) revokes by 'a physical act' where the revocatory intent is established by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Act by another person | Permitted for a paper will where the act is done 'by a person in his presence and by his express direction and consent' (§ 18-109(a)(2)). The District requires BOTH express direction AND consent, and the act must be in the testator's presence. For an electronic will, § 18-907(b)(2) instead requires that the testator 'directed another individual who performed the act in the testator's physical presence.' |
| Partial revocation | Expressly allowed by both paper routes: § 18-109(a) opens 'A will or codicil, or a part thereof, may not be revoked, except ...' and the act route reaches 'the part thereof.' Section 18-907(a)-(b) likewise lets an electronic will revoke 'all or part' of a previous will and be revoked in part. Where a codicil revokes a will item and supplies no substitute that survives, the revoked item passes as intestate property (Creech, 989 A.2d at 189). |
| Intent, proof, and presumptions | The paper statute requires 'the intention of revoking' but states no evidence standard and no missing-original rule. The District instead applies a judicially recognized presumption: where a will or codicil known to have existed in the testator's lifetime and in the testator's custody or ready access cannot be found at death, it is presumed destroyed with revocatory intent, and absent rebutting evidence that presumption justifies a finding of revocation (Webb v. Lohnes, quoted in Creech, 989 A.2d at 188). The presumption is rebuttable; the proponent of a copy must show by a preponderance that the testator did not destroy the instrument with revocatory intent, and producing an executed copy alone does not rebut it. If the original was out of the testator's reach when it went missing, the presumption does not apply at all. For electronic wills the statute itself sets a preponderance standard (§ 18-907(b)(2)). |
| Divorce, annulment, and other family events | No divorce-revocation statute. Neither Title 18 nor Title 19 contains a section revoking a former spouse's gifts or fiduciary nominations on divorce or annulment, and there is no marriage, birth, or adoption revocation section. Section 18-109(a)'s opening words preserve revocation 'by implication of law,' leaving family-status effects to general law rather than a statutory list. A surviving spouse or domestic partner instead has a separate renunciation-and-election right under D.C. Code §§ 19-112 to 19-114, which operates against the will rather than revoking it. |
| Revival after a later will or revoking act | Strict and route-independent: 'A will or codicil, or a part thereof, after it is revoked, may not be revived otherwise than by its re-execution, or by a codicil executed as provided in the case of wills, and then only to the extent to which an intention to revive is shown' (§ 18-109(b)). Destroying the later instrument does not restore the earlier one — revoking a codicil does not reinstate the will items it had revoked (Creech, 989 A.2d at 187-88). Electronic wills add one route the paper rule lacks: under § 18-906 a non-complying record readable as text is deemed compliant if the proponent shows by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended it as 'a partial or complete revival of the decedent's formerly revoked will or part of the will.' |
| Reexecution, republication, and codicil effect | Reexecution and a will-formal codicil are the only two paper revival routes, each limited to the extent revival intent is shown (§ 18-109(b)). No statutory republication-by-codicil rule and no deemed-date provision appear in Title 18. Revoking a codicil leaves the underlying will's revoked items revoked, which can produce partial intestacy. |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
The District runs two tracks. Paper wills follow a compact 1965 statute that is strict
about revocation and stricter about revival. Electronic wills follow a 2023 chapter with
its own revocation rule, its own evidence standard, and a harmless-error provision that
reaches revival — something the paper rule flatly refuses.
Requirements one by one
A separate revocation writing is allowed — with will formalities
Section 18-109(a)(1) recognizes "a later will, codicil, or other writing declaring
the revocation." That third option is genuinely broader than most states allow: a
document that does nothing but revoke can work here.
The catch is the execution requirement. The writing must be "executed as provided by
section 18-103 or 18-107." Section 18-103 means in writing and signed by the testator (or
by another in the testator's presence and by express direction), and attested and
subscribed in the testator's presence by at least two credible witnesses. Section 18-107
is the narrow oral route, available only to a person in actual military or naval service
or a mariner at sea, and only under three further conditions.
So a signed but unwitnessed note revoking your will is not a revocation writing. A
properly witnessed one-sentence document is.
Revocation by a later instrument bites immediately. In In re Estate of Creech, the
court held that a codicil's express revocation of three will items "became effective upon
execution of the 1995 codicil." 989 A.2d 185, 187 (D.C. 2010).
Four destructive acts
Section 18-109(a)(2) lists burning, tearing, canceling, and obliterating, done "with the
intention of revoking it."
Note what is absent. "Destroying" is not on the District's paper list, though it appears
in most states' statutes. Neither is any rule about whether the burn, tear, or
cancellation has to touch the words — several neighboring codes address that expressly
and the District does not.
Another person: direction and consent
For a paper will the act may be done "by a person in his presence and by his express
direction and consent." The District requires all three elements: the testator's
presence, express direction, and consent. That is a slightly heavier formulation than the
usual presence-and-direction pairing.
The electronic chapter words it differently: § 18-907(b)(2) covers a testator who
"directed another individual who performed the act in the testator's physical presence."
Partial revocation
Both paper routes reach a part — § 18-109(a) is framed as "A will or codicil, or a part
thereof," and the act route names "the part thereof." The electronic section says an
electronic will "may revoke all or part of a previous will" and may itself be revoked in
whole or part.
Partial revocation has a consequence people rarely anticipate. If a codicil revokes a
will item and the codicil is later revoked, the item stays revoked — and if nothing else
disposes of that property, it passes as though the testator died intestate as to it.
Creech, 989 A.2d at 189.
The missing original
The code says nothing about a will that cannot be found. District case law supplies the
rule, and the Court of Appeals restated it in Creech:
If a will or codicil, known to have been in existence during testator's lifetime, and
in his custody, or where he had ready access to it, can not be found at his death, a
presumption arises that such will was destroyed by testator in his lifetime with the
intention of revoking it.
Three points matter in practice. The presumption is rebuttable, and the proponent of a
copy must show by a preponderance that the testator did not destroy the instrument with
revocatory intent. Producing an executed copy is not by itself enough to rebut it. And
the presumption does not arise at all unless the testator had custody or ready access —
if the original was mailed away before death, the testator "would have lost the
opportunity to revoke the codicil by destroying the original." 989 A.2d at 188, 189.
Electronic wills: a different standard
Chapter 9, added in 2023, governs electronic wills separately. Section 18-907(b) revokes
by a subsequent will that revokes expressly or by inconsistency, or by a physical act —
but only where revocatory intent "is established by a preponderance of the evidence."
That is a written evidence standard the paper section does not contain.
Section 18-906 then adds a harmless-error rule with no paper counterpart. A record
readable as text that fails the execution requirements is still given effect if the
proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended it as a
will, as a partial or complete revocation, as an addition or modification, or as a
partial or complete revival of a formerly revoked will.
Revival is narrow, and does not care how you revoked
Section 18-109(b) allows exactly two paper routes: reexecution of the revoked instrument,
or a codicil executed with will formalities. Either way, revival reaches "only to the
extent to which an intention to revive is shown."
The rule is indifferent to how the later instrument was revoked. Destroying the newer
will does not restore the older one. Creech applied that directly: revocation of the
codicil "would not reinstate Items VI, XIII, and XIV of the earlier will." 989 A.2d at
187-88.
Family events
The District has no divorce-revocation statute. Title 18 consists of Chapters 1, 3, 7, 9,
and 10, and none contains a section revoking a former spouse's gifts or fiduciary
nominations. There is no marriage, birth, or adoption revocation section either.
Section 18-109(a) does preserve revocation "by implication of law," which keeps
common-law doctrine available, but the District has not enacted the statutory list that
most jurisdictions use.
A surviving spouse or domestic partner is instead protected by a separate mechanism.
D.C. Code § 19-113 permits a written renunciation and election for the statutory share, while
§ 19-114 preserves will benefits and a share of property the will did not dispose of when
the survivor does not renounce. Those rights operate against the will rather than revoking
any part of it; § 19-112 supplies the devise-or-bequest starting rule.
What trips people up
- Revoking the new will does not bring back the old one. Section 18-109(b) permits
revival only by reexecution or a will-formal codicil, whatever route was used to revoke.
This is the single most common misunderstanding, and Creech is the case that resolves
it. - Cancelling a gift by codicil can create partial intestacy. If the codicil revokes an
item and is itself later revoked, the property may pass under the intestacy rules rather
than to anyone named in either document. - A missing original is presumed revoked — but only if you could reach it. Custody or
ready access is the trigger. Handing the original to someone else before death can
actually defeat the presumption. - A copy is not a rebuttal. Producing an executed photocopy does not by itself
overcome the presumption. - A revocation letter needs two witnesses. The District does allow a stand-alone
revocation writing, which is unusual — but only if it satisfies § 18-103. - Divorce does not automatically cut your ex out of your DC will. There is no statute
doing that here. If your marriage ends, update the will. - The electronic and paper rules are not the same. Electronic wills carry a stated
preponderance standard for a revoking act and a harmless-error route that can even
establish revival. Neither exists on the paper side.
Common questions
I destroyed my newest will. Does my previous one take effect again?
No, not by that act alone. The District requires you to reexecute the earlier will or
execute a codicil with will formalities showing your intent to revive it, and revival
reaches only as far as that intent is shown.
Can I revoke my will with a signed letter?
Only if the letter is executed like a will — signed by you (or by another in your
presence at your express direction) and attested and subscribed in your presence by two
credible witnesses. Unwitnessed, it does nothing.
My relative's original will can't be found. Is it automatically void?
Not automatically, but a presumption of revocation applies if the will was known to exist
and was in the testator's custody or ready access. Whoever wants to probate a copy must
prove by a preponderance that the testator did not destroy it intending to revoke, and
the copy itself is not enough.
Does getting divorced revoke the gifts to my spouse?
The District has no statute that does so. A will that still names a former spouse
generally continues to name them, which is why updating the will after a divorce matters
here more than in states with an automatic rule.
Statutes and sources
- D.C. Code § 18-109 — the two paper revocation routes including the separate
will-formal revocation writing, the four destructive acts, the presence-direction-and-
consent requirement for a directed act, partial revocation, and the strict
reexecution-or-codicil revival limit. Official section
text (accessed
2026-08-01). - D.C. Code § 18-103 — execution formalities that any revoking or restoring instrument
must meet. Official section
text (accessed
2026-08-01). - D.C. Code § 18-907 — electronic-will revocation by subsequent will or physical act,
with a preponderance standard for revocatory intent. Official section
text (accessed
2026-08-01). - D.C. Code § 18-906 — electronic-will harmless error, reaching revocation,
modification, and revival on clear and convincing evidence. Official section
text (accessed
2026-08-01). - D.C. Code § 18-107 — the narrow nuncupative route for military, naval, and mariner
testators. Official section
text (accessed
2026-08-01). - In re Estate of Creech, 989 A.2d 185 (D.C. 2010) — the missing-original presumption
and its rebuttal burden, the effect of custody on whether the presumption arises, the
rule that revoking a codicil does not reinstate revoked will items, and the resulting
partial intestacy. Opinion
text (accessed
2026-08-01).
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.
Get the answer for your situation
You just read how District of Columbia handles this in general. Ask your specific question and see which parts of current District of Columbia law apply to your facts, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.