Johannes and Daniela Siebert executed a handwritten joint will in Germany in 1995, naming Daniela’s parents as beneficiaries. Shortly before her death in 2019, Daniela made a new handwritten will that expressly revoked her prior wills and left her estate to her husband. Johannes Siebert later died in 2022, giving rise to a dispute over which testamentary instrument governed his estate and whether the 1995 will remained effective for him.
In the British Columbia Supreme Court, the administrator of Mr. Siebert’s estate sought to have the 1995 will proved in solemn form. Shawna Oda, who claimed to be Mr. Siebert’s spouse after Daniela’s death, opposed the application, arguing that Daniela’s 2019 will revoked the 1995 joint will entirely and resulted in an intestacy. The chambers judge agreed, concluding that the 1995 will—treated interchangeably as both a joint and mutual will—had been fully revoked by Daniela’s later will.
The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, holding that the chambers judge erred by conflating joint wills with mutual wills. The Court clarified that a joint will is legally two separate wills contained in one document and revocable only by each testator as to their own dispositions. As a result, Daniela’s 2019 will revoked only her portion of the 1995 will, not her husband’s. Emphasizing testamentary intent and the presumption against intestacy, the Court upheld the 1995 will as valid for Mr. Siebert’s estate, while underscoring the ongoing risks and uncertainties associated with joint wills compared to true mutual wills.