Definition
Mutual testaments are wills made by two persons — typically spouses or domestic partners — in which each leaves property to the other as the survivor. The defining feature is reciprocity: each testator names the other as primary beneficiary, and the two instruments mirror one another in that arrangement.
The term describes a structural relationship between two separate wills, not a single document. Each will is independently executed and, absent a binding agreement to the contrary, each remains independently revocable during the lifetime of its maker.
Mutual testaments are closely associated with, but legally distinct from, joint wills (a single testamentary document signed by two persons) and contract wills (wills executed pursuant to an enforceable agreement not to revoke). The reciprocal form of mutual testaments creates strong factual evidence of an underlying contract, but evidence of an agreement not to revoke must be independently established — the fact of mutual execution does not by itself create an irrevocable arrangement.
---
Common Confusion
MUTUAL TESTAMENTS vs. JOINT WILL vs. CONTRACT WILL
These three terms are among the most consistently conflated in wills and estates research, and historical sources often use them interchangeably in ways modern law does not permit.
A joint will is one document signed by two testators. Mutual testaments are two documents that mirror each other. A contract will (or contractual will) is any will — joint or mutual — executed pursuant to a binding agreement not to revoke, meaning that the survivor who takes under it cannot later execute a new will disposing of the property differently. A set of mutual testaments may or may not constitute contract wills depending on whether a separate agreement was made. The distinction matters enormously: in many jurisdictions, after the first testator dies and the survivor takes the property, the survivor is free to revoke their own will and redistribute the estate unless an enforceable contract existed. Researchers who treat "mutual" as implying "contractual" will reach incorrect conclusions about the survivor's obligations.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The central research hazard with mutual testaments is that historical sources — including Black's — define the term structurally (two wills, reciprocal bequests) without addressing the contractual question that dominates modern case law on the subject. A researcher using only older dictionaries will find a clean, simple definition that obscures the most litigated issue: whether the survivor is bound after the first spouse dies.
In historical sources through the mid-twentieth century, "mutual testaments," "mutual wills," and "joint wills" appear nearly interchangeably. Modern courts and treatises have worked to draw sharper distinctions, but older reported decisions may use "mutual testaments" loosely to describe what a modern court would call a joint will or a contract will. When reading historical cases involving mutual testaments, always examine whether the court treated the arrangement as contractually binding and on what evidence.
Because the binding nature of mutual testaments typically depends on contract principles rather than pure wills law, research on this term will cross into contract doctrine — particularly mutual assent, consideration, and the formation of agreements not to revoke. The meeting-of-the-minds analysis that governs whether the parties actually agreed to irrevocability draws directly on contract law.
Jurisdictional variation is significant. Some states require that a will expressly state on its face that it is made pursuant to a contract in order for the contractual obligation to be enforceable against the survivor's estate. Others permit extrinsic evidence of the agreement. Researchers working with primary sources from a specific jurisdiction must locate the controlling statute or case law on this point rather than relying on general dictionary definitions.
In corpus research, expect the term "mutual wills" to appear far more frequently in modern sources than "mutual testaments." The latter is older usage; searching only one form will miss relevant material.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary defines mutual testaments as "wills made by two persons who leave their effects reciprocally to the survivor." This is accurate as far as it goes: it correctly identifies the two-party, reciprocal structure. What it does not address — and what a modern researcher most needs to understand — is whether and when those instruments give rise to enforceable obligations after one party dies.
The brevity of the Black's entry reflects the state of the doctrine at the time of earlier editions, when the contractual question was less developed in the case law. The definition is not wrong, but it is incomplete for modern research purposes. No other source dictionaries in this entry's source set provide a definition, which itself signals that the term is treated as sufficiently self-explanatory in older legal literature — an assumption that does not survive contact with modern estates litigation.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Enforceability of mutual testaments as binding contracts varies substantially by state. Several jurisdictions have adopted statutory provisions — modeled in part on the Uniform Probate Code — requiring that the will itself contain a reference to the contract, or that the contract be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Researchers should not assume that equitable or constructive trust remedies available in one jurisdiction to enforce mutual testaments against a survivor's estate will apply in another.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia: Contracts — Mutual Assent and Meeting of the Minds (relevant to whether an agreement not to revoke was formed); Discharge — Mutual Rescission (relevant to whether parties may jointly undo a mutual testament arrangement during their lifetimes).
---