Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Cilex Level 6 Wills case law > Case Law/Statues > Flashcards

Case Law/Statues Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa - Three requirements

A

Cain V Moon 1986

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa - in contemplation death must be impending/imminent from a known cause but need not be immediate - Held

A

Re Craven Estates 1 1937

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa - in contemplation death must be impending but need not be immediate - not Held

A

King V Dubrey 2015

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa- Conditional of Death - Held

A

Gardner V parker 1818

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa- Conditional of Death - Recovered - not held

A

Beaumont v Ewbank 1902

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa must part with Gift - Held

A

Woodward V Woodard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa must part with Gift - not Held

A

Reddel v Dobree 1839

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa must part with Gift docs - Held

A

Birch V Treasury Solicitor 1950

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Case law Donatio Moris Causa must part with Gift to recipient - Not Held

A

Mills V Shield 1948

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Case law Life Assurance/Pension not part of estate if nominations exist

A

Re Flavell 1883

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Case law Capacity

A

Banks V Goodfellow 1870 & MCA 2005 section 1, 1 / 2 .1 & 3.1/3.3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Case law Banks V Goodfellow still good law - Held

A

Scammell V Farmer - Testatrix had died before MCA 2005 came into force
Re Walker2014 confirmed MCA 2005 not intended to replace BvG but compliment it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Case law No requirement for Testator to have a perfectly balanced mind - Motivated by frivolous or bad motive

A

Fuller V Strum 2002

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Case law incoherent/confused on names/address of beneficiaries - Burden of proof testator had capacity - not Held

A

Wood V Smith 1992

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Case law Extent of property owned /Value not held

A

Schrader V Schrader 2013

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Case law Moral claims /Testamentary freedom - Held

A

Boughton v Knight 1873

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Case law Inheritance (provisions for Family and Dependents) act 1975

A

I(PFD)A 1975

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Case law Capacity - T did not have capacity held 1

A

In The estate of Park 1954 - elderly large gift given to new wife

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Case law Capacity - T had capacity -Held 1

A

Ewing V Bennett 2001 - being deaf and in the early stages of dementia did not affect capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Case law Capacity - T did not have capacity -Held 2

A

Sharp V Adam 2006 - Suffering from Severe MS had crossed an Imprecise divide and therefore lacked capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Case law Capacity - T did not have capacity - Held 2

A

Key V Key 2010 - Will executed days after wife of 65 years passed - Greif caused a temporary lack of capacity affirmed in re Wilson 2013

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Case law Lucid interval- T had capacity - held 1

A

Cartwright V Cartwright -1793 hand written will no evidence of lack of capacity in wording.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Case law lucid Interval - T did not have capacity

A

Richards V Allen 2000 - Instructions given by someone else(the sole beneficiary) the day it was executed others found her to be confused therefore not plausible to have ben done in a lucid moment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Case law Lucid Interval - T had capacity - held 2

A

Simon V Byford 2014 - Evidence showed she meet the conditions of Banks V Goodfellow and therefore had capacity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Case law Insane Delusions - Will Valid 1

A

Banks V Goodfellow 1870 - Whilst the deceased held a delusion they were being molested by evil spirits it had no effect on the gifts so will was held to be valid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Case law Insane Delusions - Will Invalid -1

A

Dew V Clark 1826 - Testator excluded only daughter evidence showed an irrational aversion from birth including not seeing them at all for first 3 years of their life - The irrational aversion clearly affect how the will was made

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Case law Insane Delusions - Will Invalid 2

A

Kastic V Chaplin and Others 2007 - two prev wills leaving entire estate to son - revoked by wills made in 88 & 89 leaving entire significant estate to the conservatives party - His delusion was that only the conservatives party could save the country from dark forces and his son was part of the dark forces - Both will revoked early will held to be valid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Case law Insane Delusions - Will Invalid 3

A

Re Richie 2009 Left entire estate to charity- was suffering from a form of OCD claimed sons were stealing from her and violent towards her and daughters never visited gave no help - denied by all Judge deemed the allegations were delusions .

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Case law Insane Delusions - Will Valid 2

A

Ramsey V Ramsey 2005 - Mother of 7 2008 will made following a stroke - One child was care giver but the relationship had deteriorated - Will gave 50% to one Daughter described as the most caring and the other 50% between the other 6 - with full reasons given in 2007 diagnosis of moderate to serve dementia was made - but evidence from the solicitor who drafted will satisfied the judge that the requirement is BvG were met and there was rational basis for the beliefs even if they were unfounded/unproven/untrue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Case law Capacity is assumed in professionally drafted wills -Held 1

A

Parker V Feltgate 1883

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Case law Rules in Parker v Feltgate extended

A

Estate of Wallace 1952 to include written instructions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Case law Undue influence - third party instruction Will not Valid

A

Singh V Amirchand -1948 testator replying on third party to convey instructions - undue influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Case law Capacity is assumed in professionally drafted wills -Held 2

A

Burgess V Hawes 2013 - Strong evidence is required to find lack of capacity when an experiences solicitor drafts a will and has full detailed note are present re capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Case law Golden Rule

A

Kenward V Adams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Case law Golden Rule non compliance will still Valid -1

A

Cattermole V Prisk 2006 - Golden Rule guidance not law and does not substitute the established rules for capacity and knowledge and approval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Case law Golden Rule non compliance - Will tested on Capacity tests

A

Allen V Emery 2005 - Golden Rule desirable precaution however ultimately capacity is a question of fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Case law Golden Rule Will Compliance will not Vaild

A

Williams V Wilmot 2012 evidence on long term solicitor and Dr out weighed file notes and single examination by an alternative Dr

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Case law Intention - Held

A

Re Berger 1989 -T unaware doc could be submitted to probate but aware making provision for disposal of property on their death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Case law Intention not held

A

Corbett V Newey 1996 - T thought Will was only valid once it had been dated by the solicitors on her death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Case law Knowledge & Approval

A

Guardhouse V Blackburn 1866 sets standards for K&A

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Case law Time of Knowledge & Approval

A

Parker V Feltgate 1883

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Case law Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances - exciting the court suspicions

A

Barry V Butlin 1883 - if the will substantially benefits the person who prepared it or a close relative of such person - The propounder must remove the suspicion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Case law Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances - exciting the court suspicions Will not valid

A

Wyniczwnko v plucinska- surowka 2005 - if the beneficiary is involved in the making of the will - D could not satisfy the court that the will reflected T’s true wishes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Case law Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances - exciting the court suspicions Will Vaild

A

Knight V Edoyna 2009- Whilst C initiated the process of drawing up the will but was not present when t gave instructions or for its execution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Case law Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances lack of K&A Will not Valid 1

A

Sherrington V Sherrington 2005 T was a experienced solicitor - held due to poorly written will and who wrote it T had not read before signing and therefore lacked K&A

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Case law Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances lack of K&A Will Valid but failed for undue influence

A

Schrader V Schrader 2013 - evidence showed did have K& A but was rendered not valid due to undue influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Case law Burden of Proof Suspicious Circumstances lack of K&A Will not Valid 2

A

Poole V Everall 2016 Carer blocked communication between Solicitor & T and failed to read the will to T before signing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Case law Blind or illiterate Testator K&A Will Valid

A

Christian V Intsifil 1954 Will typed by a clerk. The will so elaborate with details of T life court deemed it could not have been devised and was a true reflection of T wishes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Case law Precautions - Golden Rule not used Will invalid

A

Buckenham V Dickenson 2000 - T deaf and Nearly Blind Will read by T only grunted - deemed open questions should be asked

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Case law Mistake Whole Will Will valid

A

Marley V Rawlings 2014 Husband and wife signed wrong wills - deemed Valid as K&A was there mistake as to what doc to sign

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Case law Mistake as to Words used - not the legal effect will not valid

A

Collins V Elstone 1893 - use of an incorrect revocation clause revoked earlier will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Case law Mistake by Testator - Wills Vaild

A

re Phelan 1972 three forms each had revocation no indication which pre dated which - all three summited to probate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Case law Mistake by Draftsman Will when amended was valid

A

Morrell V Morrell 1882 - mistake as to number of Shares ( from S20(1) AJA1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Case law Statutory Powers to rectify - Clerical Error Rectification Granted 1

A

Re Segelman 1995 Family member by clause listed but T wanted excluded and was not named

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Case law Statutory Powers to rectify- Clerical Error Rectification Granted 2

A

Sprackling V sprackling 2008 use of Farm and Farmhouse as interchangeable when they were two separate things

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Case law Statutory Powers to rectify Clerical Error Rectification Granted 3

A

Austin V Woodward and another 2011- Revised firms precedent included that no longer represented Ts intentions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Statue - S20(1) Administration of Justice Act 1982

A

Give the court a limited power to rectify will/codicils.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Case law Rectification in preference to other courses of action - Held

A

Walker V Geo Medlicott & Son 1999 - Beneficiary’s should seek the remedy of rectification before taking any other action such as suing in negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Case law Rectification in preference to other courses of action - Not Held

A

Horsfall V Haywarsd 1999 Court felt that rectification would fail as the funds had already been distributed and held little chance of recovery even if claim was successful

60
Q

Case law Fraud deliberate false representation to T Will not valid

A

Re Edwards 2007

61
Q

Case law Fraud deliberate false representation Part of Will not valid

A

Wilson V Joghlin 1866 - Married Woman represented herself as unmarried to get T to marry her and obtain a gift in the will - Her gift was excluded the rest of the will was valid

62
Q

Case law Undue Influence - needs to be actual evidence of undue influence to invalidate will

A

Parfitt V Lawless 1872

63
Q

Case law Undue Influence Will not valid evidence of undue influence

A

Schrader V Schrader 2013 - failed bid for lack of Capacity - but held not valid due to undue influence

64
Q

Case law Undue influence - Will Valid no evidence of Undue influence

A

Carpeto V Good 2002

65
Q

Case law Undue influence - Will not Valid evidence of Undue influence

A

Killick V Pountney and Another 1999 Court emphasised the importance of taking instruction in the absence of potential beneficiaries

66
Q

Statue - Formalities for making a Will

A

S9 Wills act ( excluding privileged status)

67
Q

Case law Will can be written on any Material Will Valid

A

Hodson V barnes 1926 - will written on an Eggshell

68
Q

Case law Will written in any language - Will Valid

A

Kell V Charmer 1856 - Will written using Jewelers code

69
Q

Case law Will Written in pen/pencil/typed or all - Will part Vaild

A

In the Goods of Adams 1872 - Ink went over pencil - Ink indented to supersede the pencil

70
Q

Case law Alterations can be made in pencil

A

The goods of Tonge 1891 - Revocation clause struck out in pencil

71
Q

Case law Alterations must be shown to be intended as final alterations

A

Muir’s Trustees 1869

72
Q

Case law Signature Will Valid - Signed as Parent

A

Re Cook 1960 signed as Your Loving Mother

73
Q

Case law Signature Will Valid - Inititals

A

In the Goods of Savory 1851

74
Q

Case law Signature Will Valid - Thumbpint

A

In the Estate of Finn 1935

75
Q

Case law Witness signature Will Valid - Servent

A

In the goods of Sperling - Did not sign name but wrote Servant to Mr Sperling

76
Q

Case law Signature - Will Valid Partial Signature

A

Re Chalcraft - Signed on deathbed - Signed all she could

77
Q

Case law Signature not at the end - Will Valid

A

Weatherhill V Pearce 1995 - Homemade will signed in middle of attestation clause - deemed to give affect

78
Q

Case law Assisted signature- Will not Valid

A

Barrett V Bem 2012 - Can be assisted providing T makes some positive and discernible contribution to the signing process which was not the case here - If needed Signature should be someone independent

79
Q

Case law Witnesses Signature - Printed - Will Valid

A

Payne and Another V Payne 2018- Printing of name is sufficient

80
Q

Case law Position of the signature - Handwritten sentence at the top

A

Wood V Smith 1992 - Wrote My Will By Percy Winterbone at the top then wrote the provision as was a single action was deemed valid.

81
Q

Case law Will of multiple pages not fastened together or numbered - Will Valid 1

A

the Goods of Tiernan 1942 only sheet with attestation clause was signed - Valid presumption all pages together in T control at time of signing

82
Q

Case law Will of multiple pages not fastened together or numbered - Will Valid 2

A

Re Little 1960 - as all pages were together on signing whilst not fasten could see imprints of signature on all pages

83
Q

Case law Will not signed by envelope was - Will Valid

A

in the goods of Mann 1942 - Will not signed was in envelope which was signed by T and Witness was valid as was in another envelope that was sealed

84
Q

Case law Witnesses witness the signature not the contents of the Will - Will Invaild

A

Re Gunstan 1882 - Signature covered over - So did not witness the signature

85
Q

Case law Witnesses must acknowledge T signature

A

Couser V Couser Allegation of invalid signature by a witness can be an acknowledgement in itself

86
Q

Attestation Clause present will valid

A

Sherrington V Sherrington - strongest evidence is needed to rebut the presumption of due execution if attestation clause is present (this will failed on K&A but the point re attestation the will was vaild

87
Q

Case law Attestation Clause present will not valid

A

Ahluwalia V Singh and Others 2011 - strong Evidence only one witness was present at the time

88
Q

Case law Witnesses or spouse of Witnesses as Beneficiaries Gift Held

A

Thorpe V Beswick 1881 - Gift was to X spinster at the time of the Will - after signing Witness Married X - Gift held as at the time of signing they were not married

89
Q

Case law Witnesses or spouse received gift by codicil- Gift held

A

Anderson V Anderson 1872- As witnesses gift was added by way of a codicils that they did not witness gift was saved.

90
Q

Case law Privileged wills Who can make one

A

The estate of Stanley 1916 S5(2) Wills (S/S) Act 1918 all services and people work on boats including civilian support staff

91
Q

Case law Actual Military service

A

Re Wingham 1949- Whilst he was not in actual service he was training - Actual means active - Such so directly concerned with operations of war which is or has been in progress or is imminent

92
Q

Case law Application of Re wingham Valid 1

A

In the estate of Spark 194 1 - Member of TA mobilised - PW valid war was imminent

93
Q

Case law Application of Re wingham Valid 2

A

Re Colman 1958 in wartime- actual service as soon as they receive orders in connection with the war - do not need to be in a war zone at the time

94
Q

Case law Application of Re wingham Valid 3

A

Re Anderson - Need not be a formal war - Sufficient for warlike operations

95
Q

Case law Application of Re wingham Valid 4

A

Re Jones PW revoke earlier formal wills - Look at the totality of the environment

96
Q

Case law What is a Mariner

A

In the goods of Hale 1915 -anyone who is employed on board a ship

97
Q

Case law At Sea PW Held

A

In the goods of McMardo 1868 classed as at sea if under orders to return to ship

98
Q

Case law At Sea PW not held

A

The estate of Rapley 1983 - Discharged from one ship made before joining another - as had not had orders to join ship was not at sea

99
Q

Case law In existence at the date of the execution of the will

A

In the goods of Lady Truro 1866 - Document not in existence at the time of execution is not incorporated into the will , However if the will is executed again in full or by adding a codicil it proving all elements are satisfied it is incorporated

100
Q

Case law Referred to as in existence at the date of the will - not incorporated

A

University College of North Walesd V Taylor 1908 - the term “any Memorandum found in my papers” means it could be any document written at any time and therefore could not be deemed as incorporated

101
Q

Case law Clear Identification of the Document

A

In the goods of Garnett 1894 - will referred to docs numbered 1-6 in desk but desk contained so many docs impossible to identify with certainty which were correct

102
Q

Case law The effect of Incorporation

A

Re Berger 1989 Any incorporated doc is admitted to probate as part of the will

103
Q

Case law Express Revocation statue

A

S20 Wills act

104
Q

Case law Revocation Failed

A

Kitcat V King 1930- mealy stating a document as the “last” is not revocation

105
Q

Case law Revocation need not be in the form of a new will

A

Re Durance 1872 - can be a seperate document providing if is drafted and executed in accordance to s9 Aw

106
Q

Case law Revocation needs Knowledge and approval

A

Re Wayland - Will made expressly to deal with foreign properties owned - later made a will using all formalities including revocation clause but will was intended only to deal with UK properties - Clear from actions no approval to revoke previous will but rather they were to run together to deal with the separate properties

107
Q

Case law Revocation clause not lightly disregarded

A

Lowthorpe Lutwidge V Lowthorpe Lutwidge 1935 - Heavy burden of proof on someone who claims that an express clause is not intended to revoke previous dispositions.

108
Q

Case law Revocation by implication revocation Valid 1

A

Pepper V Pepper 1870 latter will disposed of all property it implied revocation of the first

109
Q

Case law Revocation by implication revocation Valid 2

A

re Howard 1944 whist T wrote two opposing Wills on same day nothing to indicate which was executed first so both failed but held both had intention to revoke the pervious will - leaving T intestate this case underlined the importance of date

110
Q

Case law Partial Revocation by implication Revocation failed Prev will valid

A

Curati V Perdoni - Earlier will left item to W with provision that if W dies first it was to go to X - later will excluded the provision of going to X if W died - W did die earlier will was read in conjunction

111
Q

Case law Failure of Revoke gift if new gift fails - old gift valid x 2

A

Re Hawksley’s settlement 1934 if gift given to X is revoked and given to Y but gift to Y is not legally valid gift reverts to X intention to revoke only on condition that the new gift would take affect absolutely
also Re Robinson 1930

112
Q

Case law Intention to Revoke must be Unambiguous Partial failure

A

Re Freeman 1910 - The use of ambiguous language can cause confusion and cause partial failure in this case A was mentioned to get a specific legacy and part of the residue - Later will replaced the specific legacy but made no mention in the residue - therefore the specific legacy failed but the gift of residue didn’t

113
Q

Case law Revocation by destruction - Partial Destruction - no revocation

A

Cheese V Lovejoy 1877 - simply writing” all revoked” was not sufficient to warrant revocation

114
Q

Case law Revocation by destruction - Partial Destruction - Held Revocation 1

A

In the estate of Adams 1990 - Whilst the will itself was not destroyed the Attesting signatures had been heavily scored out - Revocation was held

115
Q

Case law Revocation by destruction - Partial Destruction - Held Revocation 2

A

In the estate of Nunn 1936, Large parts of the will were physically removed and the remainder of the will stitched together - Deemed as the remainder still made sense it would have stood - however she also cut out her signature giving revocation to the whole will

116
Q

Case law Revocation by destruction - Partial Destruction - Held Revocation 3

A

In the goods of Gullan 1858 - only middle pages remained - each page attested separately the key operating part the final page with signatures of T and witnesses was missing - will was revoked

117
Q

Case law T need not destroy the will themselves - Revocation failed 1

A

Good of Dadds 1857 as the destruction had not been in his presence it was not valid revocation

118
Q

Case law T need not destroy the will themselves - Revocation failed 2

A

Re De Kremer - Whilst the will was destroyed by the solicitor on the instruction of T as it was not done in her presence revocation failed

119
Q

Case law Intention to revoke - Must be before destruction

A

Gill V Gill 1909 Wife tor up a will as part of an argument no revocation the fact he knew and did nothing to rectify the situation was deemed ascent after the act and not valid as there was no intention by T at the time of the destruction

120
Q

Case law Must have Mental capacity to revoke - Will still vaild

A

Brunt V Brunt - T suffering from delirium from alcohol withdrawal was deemed not to have the mental capacity to revoke when he torn up his will during an attack

121
Q

Case law Destruction must be intentional Will still vaild

A

Re Booth - Will accidentally destroyed by fire - no intention to revoke

122
Q

Case law Presumption as to revocation Will revoked

A

Lambell V Lambell 1831 - Will found in a mutilated condition with T when died - presumption made there was an intention to revoke but died before completion

123
Q

Case law Dependent Relative (Conditional) Revocation Held Will revoked

A

Re Jones -1976 - Laid down 4 questions - When T destroys their will
1) do they do so with the intention of it revoking it if not no revocation
2) if there intention was to revoke was it intention absolute or qualified
3) if qualified what is the qualification
4) if the qualification is in the form of a condition or contingency has it been fulfilled if not revocation is ineffective

124
Q

Case law Revocation by Marriage/Civil partnership

A

Court and other V Despallieres 2009 S184 AJA Act provisions not upheld

125
Q

Case law Mutual Wills General principle

A

Stone V hopkins 1905 Two people made arrangements to dispose of their joint estate the one dies does so with the implied promise that the survivor will hold good the arrangement after first death it becomes irrevocable unless a new will was executed by either party prior to the first death.

126
Q

Case law Mutual Wills legally binding

A

Dufour V Perira 1769 becomes legally binding on first death as first person has performed there part of the agreement - if not adhered too survivour is guilty of fraud

127
Q

Case law Nothing short of a contract not to revoke one without the consent of the other

A

re Gooodchild 1996

128
Q

Case law Proof of existence of Mutual Wills

A

Fry V Densham Smith 2010 Must be evidence of such wills - The evidence must establish
1 ) A prior agreement by both to make a mutual will and intend it to be irrevocable on the first death
2) The making of Mutual Wills pursuant to that agreement

129
Q

Case law Mutual Wills Must be Agreement that binds

A

Charles and others v Fraser 2010 reciprocal will were made by sisters - Practitioners should be sure to ensure if making Mutual wills the Rules/ramifications are fully explained in attendance notes as well as if they are indented to be mirror/reciprocal or Mutual wills the former being full able to be revoked.

130
Q

Case law Alterations/Obliterations Alterations in pencil

A

In the goods of Bellamy 1886 alterations deemed to be deliberative(not final) and are not valid unless executed

131
Q

Case law Alterations/Obliterations/ Obliteration able to read original

A

Re Itter 1950Alterations/obliteration where original can be read by natural means original wording will stand

132
Q

Case law Revival will revived not revoked by destruction

A

In the Good of Steele 1868 -must be clear and express intention to revive a previous will s22 WA

133
Q

Case law Intestacy - appropriation of the family home

A

Kane V Radley Kane and others 1998 Appropriation of the family home

134
Q

Case law Intestacy - Value is at date of appropriation not death

A

Re Collins 1975 value of property is from date of appropriation not the date of death

135
Q

Case law IFPD - Child Adopted out child Claim failed

A

Re Collins 1990 Child was adopted out of family after death but before claim. Lost right to claim as he was no longer a child of the family.

136
Q

Case law IPFD Former spouse not remarried claim failed

A

Barrass V Harding and Newman 2001- Confirms courts traditional reluctance to make provision for a former spouse who has not remarried

137
Q

Case law IFPD cohabitants must be over 2 years claim succeeded

A

Jelley V Illife 1981 Period of cohabitation of two years must be subsisting at time of death, taking into account separation through illness.

138
Q

Case law IFPD - Look at the facts as as whole not just immediately before death - Claim succeeded

A

Re Beaumont 1980 Maintenance must be in existence when the deceased died.

139
Q

Case law IFPD Adult Child Claim same standard as all other claims - failed

A

Espinosa V Bourke 1999 Adult Child is in no different position anyone else who has to prove their case.

140
Q

Case law IFPD - Widow claim succeeded

A

Re Besterman 1984 Established the principal that a spouses settlement should be similar to that they would receive on divorce.

141
Q

Case law IFPD Adult child claim - Moral claim -claim failed

A

Re Coventry 1979 There must be established some sort of moral claim … beyond the fact of a mere blood relationship.

142
Q

Case law IFPD - role separation roles equal - claim succeeded

A

White v White 2001 Husband and Wife should be treated equally there is no discrimination according to the roles they have held in the marriage

143
Q

Case law IFPD

A

Dingmar V Dingmar 2006 Jointly held assets in the net estate should be valued at date of trial not date of death.

144
Q

Case law IFPD Will favored charity - Testamentary freedom - Claim only awarded modest award

A

Ilott V Blue cross 2017 - This could have changed everything – Testamentary freedom, gifts to charities instead of children, the rules of reasonable provision, public policy on children in receipt of benefits – everything

145
Q

Case law IFPD - Claim failed as out of time

A

Berger V Berger 2013 Out of time claims will not be heard if there is no identifiable trigger for the late claim.

146
Q

Case law Specific Legacy

A

Bothamley v Sherson (1875) The gift of a distinguishable item from a person’s possessions

Cilex Level 6 Wills case law (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions