Succession 2 Flashcards
Where there is common calamity deciding who died first will be decided on balance of probabilities and only resumed when unclear
Lamb v Lamb
Where name in will is ambiguous, evidence is needed to prove what was meant
Nasmyth’s Trs v NSPCC
Wife convicted of CULPABLE HOMICIDE after years of domestic violence - forfeiture rule applied
Burns v Secretary of State for Scotland
Woman convicted of MURDER after years of domestic violence - s5 of forfeiture act can be amended in cases of murder
Patterson, Petr
Only the killer can apply under the forfeiture act
Tannock v Tannock
Debts live on
Machin’s Trs v Machin
Legal rights are a debt and so must be accepted for money and not property (case involved claiming for shares)
Cameron’s Trs v Maclean
Both legal rights and legacy can be claimed in cases of partial intestacy
Naismith v Boyes
If only 1 claimant then no collation needed
Coats Trs v Coats
Guardian granted access to modify will that already existed but unclear whether they can write a will that never existed in the first place
G Applicant 2009
Court will not rewrite wills
P’s Guardian 2012
‘Connie’ - held to be valid signature as was at end of the document
Draper v Thomason
‘Do not lose this letter, lots of love Mum’ - testamentary intention
Rhodes v Peterson
Signature to come at the end of a will so anything under that not to be considered part of the will
McLay v Farrell
Doctrine of Adoption: list of instructions not signed in an envelope that said ‘will’ and signed
Davidson v Convy
Codicils to be carried out exactly the same as wills to be valid
Downey’s Excrs
Upheld presumption that will destroyed if not in possession
Lauder v Briggs
Sol last known to be in possession of will. Court satisfied upon evidence that the will had been lost and not destroyed. As sol had it there was a copy on file alongside a deed of execution
W v W
Revocation by destruction
Clyde v Clyde
Implied revocation if later will doesn’t expressly revoke but contains inconsistent provs
Duthie’s Trs v Taylor
Post natis rule: woman very unwell leading up to birth. Had baby and died 3 days later. Under circumstances held this was sufficient amount of time to amend will and so held it was her intention not to include the baby.
Stuart Gordon v Stuart Gordon
Post natis: can request to reduce the whole will. Personal right of child only.
Stevenson’s Trs v Stevenson
Belongings couldn’t have included the particular house in question because testator didn’t own that house when writing the will.
Money could be interpreted to include bank and saving accounts as well as cash.
Lawson Exec v Lawson
‘All my other affect’
Interpreted as including a house as testator had previously mentioned living there with his granddaughter.
Crozier’s Trustee v Underwood
Designation by relationship not a condition
Couper’s JF v Valentine
Artificial intestacy
Kerr v Ptnr
Calculable estate - won’t take into account heritable property located abroad (in relation to co-habitants?)
Kerr v Mangan
Where there are multiple executors and there is a disagreement court may remove from office - has to be more than ‘disharmony’ - has to be ‘malversation’ like trusts
Campbell v Campbell’s Excrs
