DESTINATION OVER Flashcards
two species of destination
- TO A whom failing B- A= institute BORIS is either- CONDITIONAL INSTITUTE or SUBSTITUTE
- survivorship (to Aand B between them and the SURVIOR)
Paxton trs v cowie
ACCRETION. to A and B pressumped to mean to A and B and the survivor unless the WORDS OF SEVRENCE USED. to A and B EQUALLY between them
frasers trs
Accretion. in the class of legacies accretion applied notwithstanding words of severance
suc scot act 2016 s.6(2)
where a direct descentdant of a deceased legatee dies pre legatee vests. the decendants issue alive at the time are entitled to ben of the legacy. UNLESS IT IS CLEAR THE TSTATOR INTENDED OTHERWISE
s. 6(3) and 6(2) suc scot act
conflicts between destinations over
express destination over prevail over any implied
6(3)- states conclusively that the testator intended otherwise than the decendent inheriting
accourding to 6(2) IF THE LEGACY
1. is to the deceased legatee and to the survivor of them
2. is to the deceased legatee whom failing another person
s.5 and 11 1964
s.6 1964 equivolant of rep in legitim and free estate
vesting
legal rights, prior rights s. 2 intestate succession unconditional legacies take affect almost immediately on death of DE CUJUS
Ademption
testatator gifts specific property when dies. but this property is no longer in their estate the gift = void
cobbans exs
ADEMPTION. it is settled, for the better or worse, that ademption is a q of fact and NOT of Intention
they DONT OWN IT THUS NO LEGACY
ogavillie - forbes
ADEMPTION land transferred by company as sole shareholder of the land to the company.
CANNOT BE THE OWNER OF TRANSFERED LAND
tenant trs
ADEMPTION tenant inchoate sale transfer. transfer must be reg with company. transfer had begun had the property. PROPERTY NOT ADEEMED STILL IN ESTATE
meeres dowels ex
LEGITIM REI ALIENAE.
ex instruction that it should be purchased if they knew they were not the owner and could prove intention that they would like the exec to purchase IT CAN BE VALID
if the testator believed the thing belonged to them by usuage OR bequesthing it the ben could not just claim its value IT IS NOT PART OF ESTATE
anti ademption clause
or such house I own at the time of death
death of legatee
lapse
EXPRESS DESTINATION OVERS
go beyond the testator survivorship clause.
croziers trustee v Underwood
EXPRESS DESTINATION OVERS the term “their” was an express residuary legacy.
Erskine 111
a legacy is valid though there should be an error in the name of the legatee provided his description id him sufficiently above allnothers
cathcarts trs v bruce
the court determined her intent as to who she meant using a letter she wrote to ex where she referred to two young men. thus making it only possible that it was the boys of GEN james bruce
nasmyths trs v NSPCC
whilst probs meant the Scottish charity cannot go beyond clear words used her. clearly wasn’t proven
couper v valentine
my wife mrs X. My WIFE A CONDITION? HELD no whilst not wife she was still clearly id 2016 act legacy to divorce spouse change this
orminston ex v laws
my fiancé mrs s. WAS BNEVER FIANCE.
had married someone else
BUT she was clearly ID so could claim
class legacy
gives legacy to T's children. so its a class of people. identification of legatees
bequest to charity
Interpretation of: ID of legatees. if charity does not exist
Abatement
estate inadequate because of groos estate OR
groos estate big enough but net estate too smallPECUNIARY LEGACIES ABATE BEFORE SPECIAL
WHAT ORDER DO LEGAVIES ABATE
gen legacies ( money ect)
residuary ( I will leave whats left to)
universial (a legacy that discpenses of entire estate)
j CHALMERS
LEGACIES may be conditional but not all contions are valid
demonstrative legacies
reid trs v dawson
