Succession Flashcards
Lamb v Lamb
Common calamity: when trying to decide who died first balance of probabilities is the key question; presumptions only used if not clear
Burns v Secretary of State
Forfeiture: wife convicted of culpable homicide following years of domestic violence = forfeiture rule applied by court
Paterson, petitioner
Forfeiture: domestic violence case - in this case held s5 forfeiture act CAN be modified in cases of murder
Tannock v Tannock
Forfeiture: only killers can apply under forfeiture act (wife killed husband, step-son removes and hides knife)
Machin’s Trs v Machin
Debt lives on - debt status of legal rights special
Cameron’s Trs v Maclean
Legal rights are debts - must settle for money no property (case where someone with legal right was wanting to claim a share which is a right in property not money)
Stewart v Brucee Trustees
There is time to consider what to renounce
Coats Trs v Coats
If only one claimant then no collation required
G Applicant 2009
Guardian granted access to amend existing will but unclear whether they can write a will where none existed in the first place
P’s Guardian 2012
The court will not rewrite wills
Draper v Thomason
‘Connie’ - held valid signature because at the end of the document/will
Rhodes v Peterson
‘Do not lose this letter, lots of love Mum’ - held to imply testamentary intention
McLay v Farrell
Signature is to go at the end of a will so anything underneath the signature is not to be interpreted as part of the will
Davidson v Convy
Doctrine of adoption: list of instructions on paper not signed - put in envelope that said ‘will’ and was signed = accepted
Downey’s Excrs
Codicils have to be carried out exactly the same way as wills to be valid
Lauder v Briggs
Lost will: upheld presumption that it was destroyed if not in possession
W v W 2022
Lost will: last known possessor was solicitor and not deceased. Court satisfied upon evidence that will had been lost and not destroyed because sol had copy on file and deed of execution.
Clyde v Clyde
Revocation by destruction
Stuart Gordon v Stuart Gordon
Post natis rule: woman very unwell in run up to birth. Had baby and died 3 days after but didn’t amend will - held under circumstanced 3 days was sufficient to amend will so was held it had been her intention not to include the child
Stevenson’s Trs v Stevenson
Post natis rule: child can request to reduce whole will - personal right of the child only
Lawson Exec v Lawson
Interpretation: in this case belongings couldn’t have included the house in question as testator didn’t own the house at the time of writing their will
Couper’s JF v Valentine
Interpretation: designation by relationship (e.g my wife, elizabeth) not a condition
Kerr v Ptnr
Artificial intestacy - deliberately renouncing will to claim legal rights (spouse renounced will in order to claim legal rights and get everything (there were issue that had been left legacies but by the time she’d claimed legal rights there was nothing left)
Kerr v Mangan
Calculable estate? - won’t take into account heritable property abroad
