What kind of evidence can be used to rebut the presumption of revocation when a will is damaged?

The rebuttal of the presumption of revocation when a will is damaged hinges on demonstrating that the will was previously executed and that the testator intended for the will to remain in effect despite the damage. This concept is rooted in the idea that a damaged will may raise a presumption that the testator intended to revoke it; however, this presumption can be contested by providing evidence of the will’s original execution and the testator’s intent to uphold it.

By presenting proof that the will was executed in accordance with valid legal formalities and demonstrating the testator's continued intention to adhere to the contents of the will, one can effectively challenge the assumption that damage signifies revocation. This may include evidence such as the presence of witnesses at the will's signing or indications that the testator communicated their desire for the will to remain in effect even after it was harmed.

Other forms of evidence, while potentially valuable in different contexts, do not directly address the presumption of revocation in the way described. Statements about the testator's wishes or incapacity might inform considerations of the testator's mental state at other points in time, and statements from legal colleagues could support conclusions about general practice or intent, but they do not specifically counter the implications of