[Direct answer]The comparison of the validity of wills involves two steps. The first step is the review of validity, in which each will is independently assessed to determine whether it is valid and effective. If the formal requirements are lacking, the testator lacks capacity for civil conduct, the expression of intention is not true, or the content violates the law or disposes of others' property, the will will be deemed invalid from the outset and cannot proceed to the comparison of validity. The second step is conflict resolution. According to Article 1142 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), if there are multiple wills with conflicting contents, the latest will shall prevail. The article also clarifies that the Civil Code has abolished the previous inheritance law's provision on the priority of notarized wills, and notarized wills are no longer inherently superior to other forms such as self-written, proxy-written, or printed wills. Therefore, as long as the later will is legal and valid, even if it is in the form of a self-written will, it can still modify the content of the earlier notarized will. In addition, according to Article 1143, wills made by persons without or with limited capacity for civil conduct are invalid, wills made under fraud or coercion are invalid, forged wills are invalid, and wills that have been tampered with are invalid. In practice, it should be noted that if multiple wills dispose of different properties, the various parts can coexist, but only the conflicting parts need to be determined according to the latest will.Inheritance of property and division of family assetsYou can view similar questions in this column.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

There are four common situations: First, an elderly person firstly makes a notarized will and then a self-written will, with the content of the two documents being inconsistent, and the family members are not clear about which one takes precedence; Second, when the elderly person is seriously ill, different children accompany him or her to make wills separately, all claiming that theirs is the last one; Third, one will disposes of real estate while another disposes of deposits, which is mistakenly believed that they must be applied together; Fourth, in addition to the will, the deceased also signed a donation and support agreement or a family division agreement, and it is necessary to determine the relationship between them. There are also situations where the testator withdraws the will by a written statement after making it, or directly scratches or smears on the will. When Beijing courts handle such cases, they usually first fix the originals of the various wills and the time of their making, then review the form and the testator's capacity for action, and finally deal with the conflicting parts of the will according to the content of the last will. It should be noted that it is sometimes difficult to provide evidence of the order of making the wills. The statements of the custodians and witnesses, as well as audio and video recordings, will all be crucial. For the connection between the will and the agreement, it can be referred to together.Special services and other casesColumn.

II. Key points of contention

Focus I: How to determine the time of drafting each will? The probative force of the signing date, witness records, and audio/video recordings needs to be comprehensively evaluated. Focus II: Are the formal requirements complete? Handwritten wills and printed wills impose stricter requirements on the number of witnesses, signatures, and dates. Focus III: What is the legal status of notarized wills? After the implementation of the Civil Code, notarized wills are no longer given priority, but the probative force of notarized documents remains strong. Focus IV: When should the testator's capacity for action be assessed? It should be based on their status at the time of drafting, rather than a retrospective diagnosis. Focus V: Are there any instances of fraud or coercion? The party making the claim must bear the corresponding burden of proof. Focus VI: How to handle the coexistence of wills and legacy-support agreements? The provisions of the agreement that conflict with the will generally prioritize the beneficiaries specified in the agreement. Focus VII: How to handle a will that has been tampered with? Only the tampered content is invalid, and the remaining parts remain valid. Specific determinations should be based on currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

In disputes over the validity of multiple wills, the first step is always to conduct a validity review of each will. Taking a will inheritance dispute handled by Attorney Yuan Hang of our firm as an example: In July 2023, Wang *5 drafted a self-written will, designating his spouse, Zhou Min, to inherit an 88-square-meter house in Fengtai District. The will also included obligations requiring Wang *1 to pay 400,000 yuan, Wang *2 and Wang *3 to each pay 300,000 yuan after selling the house, totaling 1 million yuan, with the remaining funds going to Zhou Min. Wang *1's daughter, Wang Li, was not allocated any funds. After Wang *5's death in September 2023, the three siblings sued for immediate auction of the house and division of the proceeds. Zhou Min appointed Attorney Yuan Hang to defend the case. Although there was only one will in this case, the court's review process perfectly demonstrated the complete logic of validity comparison: First, it examined whether the will was written by the testator, signed and sealed with fingerprints, and dated, confirming the validity of the self-written will according to Article 1134 of the Civil Code; then it verified the testator's capacity for action and authenticity of the intention; finally, it addressed the performance of the obligations clauses, requiring the heirs to fulfill their obligations according to Article 1144 of the Civil Code and defining the scope of repayment based on the actual value of the estate according to Article 161 of the Civil Code. Assuming there was another previously executed notarized will disposing of the same house, according to Article 1142(3) of the Civil Code, the conflicting provisions would still be governed by the last-executed will in July 2023. Attorney Yuan Hang argued for the validity of the will and sought a grace period for performance, submitting income certificates and a property valuation report for the house worth approximately 4.5 million yuan, proposing a plan for transferring ownership first and deferring payment. The Fengtai District People's Court ruled the will valid, ordering Zhou Min to inherit the house and requiring all parties to complete the transfer by January 14, 2025, with Zhou Min obligated to pay 1 million yuan by July 14, 2029 at the latest. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm. 多份遗嘱的效力争议，第一步永远是先给每一份遗嘱做有效性体检。以本所员航律师代理的一起遗嘱继承纠纷为例：王某5于2023年7月立下自书遗嘱，将丰台区一处88平方米房屋指定由配偶周敏继承，并附义务要求卖房后向姐姐王某1支付40万元、向弟弟王某2与妹妹王某3各支付30万元，合计100万元，余款归周敏，前妻之女王丽未获分配。2023年9月王某5去世后，三兄妹诉请立即拍卖房屋分割折价款，周敏委托员航律师应诉。本案遗嘱虽只有一份，但法院的审查路径恰好呈现了效力比较的完整逻辑：先看是否亲笔书写、签名捺印、注明日期，依第一千一百三十四条确认自书遗嘱成立；再看遗嘱人行为能力与意思表示是否真实；最后处理附义务条款的履行，依第一千一百四十四条要求继承人履行义务，依第一千一百六十一条界定以遗产实际价值为限的清偿范围。假设本案另有一份先订立的公证遗嘱处分同一房屋，依第一千一百四十二条第三款，内容抵触部分仍应以2023年7月这份最后订立的遗嘱为准。员航律师据此主张遗嘱有效并争取履行宽限期，提交收入证明与房产估值报告，提出先行过户、延期付款方案。丰台区人民法院认定遗嘱有效，判决1506号房屋由周敏继承，各方于2025年1月14日前完成过户，周敏最迟于2029年7月14日前支付100万元。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Yuan HangAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101202110286151, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as an agent.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

Action suggestions: First, when making a new will, it is necessary to clearly state the intention of revoking all previous wills to avoid disputes caused by the coexistence of old and new wills; Second, keep the original will properly, and if necessary, entrust a neutral third party to keep it and maintain the transfer records; Third, simultaneously record audio and video to fully document the time of making the will and the process of the witnesses and the testator expressing their intentions; Fourth, for notarized wills, any changes to the content should be made by drafting a new will that meets the statutory form, and it is not advisable to directly modify the notarized will; Fifth, if the will is found to have been tampered with, it is necessary to promptly fix the original and claim that the tampered parts are invalid. The remaining parts can still be executed according to the will. The relevant processing ideas can be referred to for reference.Creditor's rights and debts, and enforcement cases1. Category; 2. If there is a legacy support agreement, submit the original of the agreement and clarify the relationship between the agreement and the will. 3. Legal basis: Articles 1134, 1135, 1136, 1142, 1143, and 1144 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (all effective from January 1, 2021); 4. Specific adjudication standards shall be based on the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, the concept of the priority effectiveness of notarized wills is outdated. After the implementation of the Civil Code, the last will shall prevail, so the time of making the will is more crucial than its form. Secondly, multiple wills do not necessarily exclude each other. The parts that dispose of different objects can coexist, and only the conflicting parts need to be chosen. Thirdly, the method of revoking a will should be clear. Making a new will, writing a statement of revocation, or destroying the original will may constitute revocation, but this needs to be supported by evidence. Fourthly, the mental state of the elderly when making a will is most likely to be attacked. It is recommended to keep records of physical examination or mental status. Fifthly, witnesses should be as unrelated to the interests of all parties as possible to avoid being suspected of being controlled by one party. Sixthly, family members should try to resolve the dispute through consultation. For disputes that are more difficult to resolve, it is necessary to entrust professional lawyers to intervene as soon as possible, firstly to fix the original will and the evidence of the time of making the will, and then to discuss the substantive disputes.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Does a notarized will still have priority effect?

There's nothing else. According to Article 1142 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if there are several wills with conflicting contents, the latest will shall prevail, and the notarized will shall no longer naturally take precedence over other forms of wills.

Q2: Can a handwritten will override a previously notarized will?

Yes. As long as the later self-written will meets the formal requirements of being written by the testator himself, signed and with the date specified, and the testator has full capacity for civil conduct, the conflicting content shall be determined according to the will.

Q3: How should we handle the situation where the contents of two wills are completely different?

The parts with different disposal objects can be executed concurrently; only the parts that conflict with each other in terms of the same property or the same matter shall be determined in accordance with Article 1142 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China based on the last-made will.

Q4: Is the will still valid if it has been altered?

According to Article 1143 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if a will is tampered with, the tampered content shall be invalid, but the unaltered part shall not be invalidated and can still be executed in accordance with the will.

Q5: In the event of a conflict between a will and a legacy maintenance agreement, which one should prevail?

The part of the legacy support agreement involving the rights of the supported person usually takes precedence. The content of the will that conflicts with the agreement cannot be used against the supported person who has fulfilled their support obligations. The specific relationship needs to be determined based on the content of the agreement.

The above questions and answers are mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the adjudication guidelines in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for inheritance·Attorney Yuan Hang·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.