Partial revocation of a will: how the validity of inheritance dispositions regarding various properties is determined

The issue of multiple wills within one inheritance case is in practice much more complicated than it often seems at first glance. In everyday understanding, there is a perception that each new will automatically cancels the previous one completely, however, in real inheritance relations, everything depends on the content of a specific document, on what property the testator disposed of, whether he covered the entire inheritance with the new will or only part of it, and also whether the new provisions contradict the previous ones.

Therefore, the appearance of two or three wills, drawn up at different times, often creates serious difficulties for the heirs, the notary, and even the court, especially if part of the property is directly mentioned in one document, part in another, and part remains outside the new provisions altogether.

Lawyers from the Repeshko & Partners Law Firm commented on how the relationship between the old and new wills is determined in such cases, when it comes to the complete cancellation of the previous will, and when it only concerns its partial loss of validity. They explained why special care when drawing up and changing a will is of fundamental importance in order to avoid further disputes regarding the composition of the inheritance and the circle of heirs.

Ordinary citizens believe that there is nothing simpler than inheritance by will. Well, what could be more simple? A person made a will, appointed an heir, and that’s it. However, inheritance by will can be even more complicated than inheritance by law. In the classic version, when the will states: “All property belonging to me, wherever it is located and whatever it consists of and which will belong to me on the day of my death, I bequeath to my daughter Sydorenko Marina Maksimivna,” and only an apartment or part of it is left as property, there really are no questions. However, there are cases when the heir has such a rather large list of inherited property that he cannot even remember at the time of drawing up the will.

For example, a husband has a residential house, a land plot under a residential house, agricultural land shares, a car, a truck, and the best man has a GAZelle in his garage. And so the writing of the will begins: the house and the land plot under it – to his wife, agricultural land shares – to his daughter-in-law, a car and a truck – to his son. And about the GAZelka, which is in the garage of the godfather – he forgot and did not include it in the will… He also forgot about the parental house in the neighboring village – it was also not included in the will.

An even worse option is when, after making a will, the man lived, lived…. quarreled with his wife – went to rewrite the will: a house for his daughter, land agricultural shares – for his son, a car for his grandson. He forgot about the land plot under the house, the truck, and did not mention the GAZelka, and the parental house in the neighboring village at all.

There are endless family dramas based on these examples. What does the legislation tell us and what should everyone remember? The Civil Code of Ukraine states that the testator has the right to include in the will the rights and obligations that belong to him at the time of making the will, as well as those rights and obligations that may belong to him in the future. The testator has the right to make a will regarding the entire inheritance or part of it.

If the testator has distributed only his rights among the heirs in the will, the part of his obligations that is proportional to the rights received by them shall pass to the heirs he has appointed. In this case, the validity of the will regarding the composition of the inheritance is established at the time of opening the inheritance.

The part of the inheritance that is not covered by the will is inherited by the heirs at law on general grounds. These heirs also include the heirs at law to whom the other part of the inheritance was transferred by the will. In the example of the Gazelle and the parental house in a neighboring village, the heirs will receive what is written down in the will for each, and then the same Gazelle and the parental house in a neighboring village will be divided between the deceased’s wife and his children in equal parts for each in addition to what each has already received in the will. As for the land plot under the house, it is even more complicated, because it must follow the fate of the house and go to the one who owns the house, but there are options. If the heir by will is also the heir by law, the part of the inherited property that remained outside the will is divided equally between all heirs by law, including the heir specified in the will.

It is worth knowing that the testator has the right to revoke the will at any time. The testator has the right to make a new will at any time. A will that was made later revokes the previous will in full or in the part in which it contradicts it. Each new will revokes the previous one and does not restore the will that the testator made before it. This is where a lot of confusion usually arises, because there are people who rewrite their will almost every year, while the heirs and the amount of property in each of them can change – then try to figure out who made what when five or seven wills were made.

The testator has the right to make changes to the will at any time. The testator can revoke the will and make changes to it personally. The will cannot be certified by representatives. When certifying a will, the testator is not required to submit evidence confirming his right to the property being bequeathed. The will must be drawn up in such a way that the testator’s instructions do not cause misunderstandings or disputes after the opening of the inheritance.

If several wills of the testator are provided for the registration of the inheritance, the notary must provide them with a legal assessment. When issuing a certificate of the right to inheritance under a will, the notary must necessarily find out the presence of heirs who are entitled to a mandatory share in the inheritance, the list of which is specified in Article 1241 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

The resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated February 25, 2026 in case No. 598/950/24 shows how difficult the division of inherited property under a will can be in practice. In this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the first defendant and the second defendant, requesting that he be recognized as the owner of a land plot for personal farming with an area of ​​0.2514 hectares, a land plot with an area of ​​0.1827 hectares for the construction and maintenance of a residential building, outbuildings and structures, as well as one-sixth of a residential building with outbuildings and structures, in accordance with the will of the will of the grandmother, in accordance with the procedure of inheritance under the will after her death.

The plaintiff based his claims on the fact that after the grandmother’s death, an inheritance was opened for all property belonging to her, including the specified land plots. During her lifetime, the grandmother made three wills. The first, dated December 17, 1999, stipulated that she bequeathed all property belonging to her to her grandson, who is the plaintiff in the case. The second will, dated May 30, 2013, concerned part of a residential building, as well as part of a land plot with an area of ​​0.25 hectares for conducting commercial agricultural production. The third will, dated August 7, 2013, was drawn up in favor of three heirs – the plaintiff and two defendants. In it, the grandmother bequeathed to them in equal shares a residential building, as well as in equal shares to the second defendant and the plaintiff – a land plot for conducting commercial agricultural production.

The plaintiff’s position was that the property to which he requested to be recognized as his ownership right in the order of inheritance under the 1999 will was not covered by the wills dated May 30, 2013 and August 7, 2013. That is why he believed that the will dated December 17, 1999, according to which it should pass to him, remained valid for this property.

However, by a decision of the state notary, he was refused a certificate of inheritance under a will on the grounds that the will of December 17, 1999 was canceled. In this regard, the plaintiff applied to the court with a demand to recognize his ownership rights in the order of inheritance under the will of December 17, 1999.

By the decision of the court of first instance dated April 4, 2025, the claim was refused. The reason – the will of December 17, 1999 at the time of opening the inheritance had already lost its validity in full, and other inherited property that was not covered by the wills of 2013 is subject to inheritance by law.

By the decision of the court of appeal dated September 10, 2025, the appeal was dismissed. The decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged.

After that, the plaintiff filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court proceeded from the following. According to Part One of Article 1245 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the part of the inheritance not covered by the will is inherited by the heirs at law on general grounds. These heirs also include the heirs at law to whom the other part of the inheritance was transferred by will.

Analysis of the second and third parts of Article 1254 of the Civil Code of Ukraine allows us to state that, in the case where the testator has made several wills, the legislator has provided rules that must be taken into account to determine which will (wills) determine (determine) the heir (heirs) and/or the inherited property. Such rules are that:

• Firstly, as a result of making a new will, the previous will loses its validity. That is, if the new will completely contradicts the previous will, then the new will cancels the previous will and the determination of the heir(s) and/or the inherited property is based on the last will;
• Secondly, as a result of the new will, the previous will is partially invalidated. That is, if the new will partially contradicts the previous will, then the new will only partially cancels the previous will and the determination of the heir(s) and/or the inherited property is based on two wills.

The interpretation of part three of Article 1254 of the Civil Code of Ukraine indicates that the drawing up of a new will, which reduces the volume of the inheritance compared to the previous one, but does not change the heir, cancels the previous will in the relevant part, since the testator determined the heir only in relation to part of the inheritance. It was established that the grandmother made three wills in favor of the plaintiff and two defendants during her lifetime, in which she determined to whom and what specific property she was bequeathing.

Thus, the first will dated December 17, 1999 concerned all hereditary property, including the disputed property, which the grandmother bequeathed to her grandson – the plaintiff in the case. The will dated May 30, 2013 concerned one living room of a residential building and part of a land plot for conducting commercial agricultural production, which the grandmother bequeathed to Defendant 2.

The will dated August 7, 2013 concerned a residential building, which the grandmother bequeathed to the plaintiff and two defendants in equal shares for each. This will also concerned a land plot for conducting commercial agricultural production, which the grandmother bequeathed to the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 in equal shares for each.

The Court of Appeal, while agreeing with the conclusions of the local court that the will of December 17, 1999 is revoked, did not pay attention to the fact that the property, the ownership of which the plaintiff requests to be recognized as his in the order of inheritance under the will drawn up in 1999, was not covered by the wills of May 30, 2013 and August 7, 2013, and therefore it is impossible to agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the subsequent wills completely revoked the previous will.

The grandmother, in her wills dated May 30, 2013 and August 7, 2013, disposed of part of the inheritance and indicated which property she was bequeathing to the heirs, therefore there is no reason to believe that these wills completely, and not in the relevant part, canceled the will dated December 17, 1999, by which the grandmother bequeathed all her property to the plaintiff in the case.

When considering the case on appeal, the appellate court did not take this into account and, limiting itself exclusively to the provisions of Part Four of Article 1254 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, did not review the case on its merits, did not verify the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the court of first instance, and did not provide a reasoned assessment of the arguments of the participants in this case.

The Supreme Court is deprived of the authority to evaluate the evidence collected in the case that was not examined and evaluated, in particular, by the appellate court. Taking into account the above, the contested decision of the Court of Appeal cannot be considered legal and is subject to cancellation, and the case is transferred to the Court of Appeal for a new consideration.

As we can see, three wills could not be sorted out: a notary, a court of first instance represented by one professional judge, and a court of appeal represented by three professional judges, and therefore only the Supreme Court sorted it out, overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal and sending the case for a new consideration to the Court of Appeal.

So that heirs do not have similar problems, we recommend that you take a responsible approach to drawing up a will, and even more responsibly – to changing it in the future. Do not forget about the full list of property that will be considered hereditary and draw up or change the will so that you can easily understand who will receive which property in what part.

We also recommend that when drawing up or amending a will, clearly determine what property the testator disposes of, whether the new document applies to the entire inheritance or only a specific part of it, and whether the will does not include objects that may later become a cause for dispute, as the inaccuracy or incompleteness of inheritance instructions often creates legal uncertainty after the opening of the inheritance.