Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,300+ case briefs...

Gushwa v. Hunt

New Mexico Supreme Court
197 P.3d 1 (2008)


The decedent, George Gushwa, executed a will that left his estate in a trust for his wife, Zane Gushwa, with the remainder to be distributed to his nieces and nephews upon Zane’s death. George gave the original will to Ted Dale for safekeeping. George then decided to revoke the will. According to Zane, Ted refused to send the original will to George. According to Ted, Zane requested the original will, and George instructed Ted not to send it to her, but instead to send him a photocopy of certain pages. George wrote “revoked” on the top of the photocopied pages of his will in his possession. George and his attorney also executed a document called Revocation of Missing Will(s), which stated that George wished to revoke his will, that he had cancelled the three photocopied pages of his will with the intent to revoke the will, and that his estate would pass by intestate succession if he did not execute a subsequent will. George later acquired a photocopy of the entire will from his attorney, and wrote “revoked” on the top of all of the pages of this photocopy. After George died, Zane (plaintiff) asserted that George had died intestate because he had revoked his will by executing the revocation document and by writing “revoked” on the photocopied will. George’s niece Wanda Hunt (defendant) objected, arguing that George’s will had not been revoked because the attempted revocation did not comply with the revocation requirements under the probate code. Zane argued that Ted’s actions prevented George from being able to write “revoked” on the original will, and asked that a constructive trust be imposed on the estate if George’s will was found to not be revoked. The district court found that George’s revocation was not effective, and the court of appeals affirmed. Zane appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Bosson, J.)

Dissent (Chavez, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 370,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,300 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial