Under the intent theory of ademption, what outcome is possible when a specifically devised asset is destroyed before death and no replacement is provided?

• A. The devisee may be entitled to replacement property if the testator would have wanted
• B. The devisee receives nothing
• C. The insurance proceeds go to the estate
• D. The beneficiary must prove the testator intended gift to someone else

Answer: (A)

Under the intent theory of ademption, the key idea is to honor what the testator would have wanted if a specifically devised asset disappears before death. Instead of automatically failing the gift, the court asks whether a substitute asset or its value would have satisfied the testator’s gift. If substitution would have matched the testator’s intent, the beneficiary can receive replacement property or its value, even when the original asset is destroyed and no replacement is expressly provided in the will. This is why the outcome to consider is that the devisee may be entitled to replacement property if the testator would have wanted that substitution to fulfill the gift. For example, if the testator valued the substitution of a ring with another piece of jewelry of similar worth, or with cash of equal value, the beneficiary could receive that replacement. If the testator would not have wanted substitution, the gift may fail or depend on other circumstances, but the primary idea is honoring the testator’s intent for substitutes.