It’s not uncommon for someone to make a will and then decide they no longer like the asset disposition plan stated in the will. The best action to take in this circumstance is to make a new will that clearly states that all prior wills are revoked.

But sometimes that person isn’t quite ready to make a new will and needs time to think about the matter. There, it may be appropriate to revoke the previous will without as yet replacing it with a new will (although the person then risks dying intestate — without a will).

This then raises the question: How do you revoke a will? The Colorado Probate Code says a will can be revoked by “burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating or destroying” the document, as long as such an act is done with the intent to revoke the will. With any of these acts, however, it’s important to create evidence as to what was done, when it was done, and perhaps even why it was done. For example, if the revocatory act is by canceling, “canceled” can be written on the face of the original document and the document can then be signed and dated by the revoking will maker next to the word “canceled.” After that, the document can be carefully stored in a location where it is going to be found after the will maker’s death.

As you might expect, if there is uncertainty concerning the revocation of a will, the seeds are planted for a lawsuit wherein someone named to receive assets under the will claims that the revocation was ineffective and the will should be enforced as originally written. The chances for such a lawsuit are increased if, at the will maker’s death, the original of a will known to have existed cannot be found and no evidence of revocation of the will can be found. There, a legal presumption comes into play that the will maker had in fact revoked the will. However, this presumption is rebuttable and someone who was named to receive property under the will that can’t be found can try to probate a copy of the missing will, claiming there was no revocation and the document was just misplaced, or perhaps stolen and destroyed by someone who would inherit if there was no will. By way of modest clarification — or not — presumptions are tricky things in the law; they serve the purpose of evidence when more direct evidence is missing. (Note to readers: this is part of the plot of a novel I wrote called “Where There’s No Will.”)

A case decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2011 — In re the estate of Schumacher — provides an example of how a dispute over revocation of a will can get rolling. In this case, David Schumacher prepared a hand-written will leaving stock in a company called Meyers Land and Cattle to three of his cousins, Deborah, Cheryl and Maria. He later decided he wanted the stock to go only to Deborah. He therefore crossed out the names of Cheryl and Maria and tucked the document away in a box of his possessions, where it was found after his death. Although David started the process of having a lawyer draw up a new will, he died before that was done.

Deborah, the cousin whose name was not crossed out, sought to probate the altered document, claiming she should get the Meyers Land and Cattle stock. However, cousin Maria sued, claiming on various grounds that the cross-outs were not an effective act of revocation and she should get a share of the stock. The lawsuit, filed in the Denver probate court, quickly got technical and contentious (meaning expensive).

The trial court decided the revocation was effective and Deborah should get the stock. Maria appealed. The court of appeals, in a lengthy decision, concluded the trial court got it right and that the property would go to Deborah.

As an aside, in addition to running up large legal bills for all concerned, this lawsuit probably didn’t do much to improve relationships in David Schumacher’s family.

Jim Flynn is a business columnist. He is of counsel with the Colorado Springs firm Flynn & Wright LLC. He can be contacted at moneylaw@jtflynn.com.

Business columnist Jim Flynn.