Will drafting MCQs Flashcards
A man died recently. The man’s will, which he executed last year, included the following gift:
“I give £500 to my goddaughter “.
The man altered the will a week before he died, by striking through the figure of £500 with a single line.
He had not made any other alteration, carried out any other formality, or taken any other step, and the amount of the gift to the goddaughter is still visible.
Which of the following is correct?
The alteration is invalid and the man’s goddaughter will receive £500.
The original gift is apparent so the executors can decide whether the man’s goddaughter receives £500 or whether she will receive nothing.
The alteration was made after the will was executed so the will is admitted to probate with a blank space. The man’s goddaughter will receive nothing.
The alteration is valid and the man’s goddaughter will receive nothing.
As the alteration was made after the will was executed the will is invalid.
The alteration is invalid and the man’s goddaughter will receive £500.
Correct. Any alteration (strike through of the original gift) made after the will is executed is invalid, unless the effect of the alteration is an obliteration (s 21 Wills Act 1837). This amendment is not valid and as the original amount can be identified by natural means the gift remains effective and the man’s goddaughter receives £500.
A woman died recently. The woman’s will, which she executed last year, included the following gift, which she then altered with correction fluid a month after execution:
“I GIVE £ to my brother”
Prior to the alteration the gift read “£2,500” but, afterwards, the amount could not be seen at all.
Which of the following is correct?
If the executors submit an affidavit of due execution of the will the man’s brother will receive £2,500.
The will is valid but the man’s brother receives nothing.
As the alteration was made after the will was executed the will is invalid.
If the executors submit extrinsic evidence of the original amount the man’s brother will receive £2,500.
The executors can decide how much the man’s brother should receive.
The will is valid but the man’s brother receives nothing.
Correct. Any alteration (the use of correction fluid to cover up the amount of the gift) made after the will is executed is invalid unless the effect of the alteration is an “obliteration” (s 21 Wills Act 1837). As this amendment has completely covered up (obliterated) the number and it is not possible to read what the original gift was, the will is submitted to probate with a blank space and the man’s brother receives nothing.
Question 1
A woman died last week. In her valid will, she left her entire estate to a registered charity.
She owned a half share in her house as a beneficial tenant in common with her husband.
The proceeds of her life policy are payable to her estate. She also owned some shares in
quoted companies, money in a bank account and she held a life interest in a trust created
by her father’s will.
What will the charity receive?
A The half share in the house, the proceeds of the life policy, the shares, bank account
and the trust fund.
B Only the half share in the house, the proceeds of the life policy, the shares and the
bank account.
C Only the proceeds of the life policy, the shares and the bank account.
D Only the half share in the house, the shares and the bank account.
E Only the shares, the bank account and the trust fund.
Answer
Option B is correct. A beneficial share in a tenancy in common passes under the deceased
tenant in common’s will (contrast a joint tenancy). The life policy proceeds are part of the
estate passing under the will because they were not written in trust or assigned to another.
The shares and bank account were in the woman’s sole name and they pass under her will.
Option A is wrong. The trust fund is not part of the estate passing under the will. It will pass
according to the terms of the father’s will trust.
Option C is wrong because it omits the share in the house which will pass under the will to the
charity.
Option D is wrong because it omits the proceeds of the life policy which will pass under the
will to the charity.
Option E is wrong because it omits the proceeds of the life policy which will pass under the
will to the charity and wrongly includes the trust fund which passes outside the will.
Question 2
A man died last week. His will, made six months ago, left his substantial estate to his niece.
A solicitor drafted the man’s will on the niece’s instructions and the niece was present when
the man executed the will at the solicitor’s office. The man’s daughter wants to know if she
can challenge the validity of the will. The daughter says that the man was lucid and that
various relatives have reported that the niece put pressure on him to make the will in her
favour.
Which of the following best describes whether the daughter can challenge the validity
of the man’s will?
A The daughter has no grounds to challenge the validity of the man’s will.
B The daughter could challenge the validity of the man’s will on the ground that he
lacked testamentary capacity.
C The daughter could challenge the validity of the man’s will on the ground that he did
not know and approve the contents.
D The daughter could challenge the validity of the man’s will but she would have to rebut
the presumption of knowledge and approval.
E The daughter could challenge the validity of the man’s will because there is a
presumption of undue influence.
Answer
Option C is correct. The facts suggest that the niece pressurised the man into making the will
which casts doubt on his knowledge and approval.
Option A is therefore wrong.
Option B is wrong. The facts state that the man was lucid and therefore possessed mental
capacity.
Option D is wrong. The presumption of knowledge and approval would not apply here due to
the suspicious circumstances (the beneficiary brought about the preparation and execution of
the will).
Option E is wrong. There is no presumption of undue influence as regards wills. The person
alleging undue influence has to prove it.
Question 3
A testatrix signed her will with two witnesses present. The two witnesses signed at different
times. Each signed in the presence of the testatrix but not in the presence of the other
witness. The will contains an attestation clause.
The executor was present throughout the execution process. The testatrix has now died.
Will the executor be able to obtain a grant of probate of the will?
A Yes, because the will was validly executed and the attestation clause raises a
presumption of due execution.
B No, because the will was not validly executed.
C Yes, but the executor will have to provide the Probate Registry with an affidavit of due
execution.
D No, unless there is a court decision confirming validity of the will.
E Yes, but only if the witnesses acknowledged their signatures to each other
Answer
Option A is correct. The will was validly executed in accordance with s 9 Wills Act 1837.
The testator signed in the presence of two witnesses as required and they each signed in
the testator’s presence. The witnesses do not have to sign in each other’s presence. The
attestation clause raises a presumption that the will was validly executed.
Option B is therefore wrong.
Option C is wrong. An affidavit of due execution is not required due to the presumption of
due execution raised by the attestation clause. Affidavits are required only if there is no such
presumption.
Option D is wrong. The will was properly executed as explained above. No court order is
required.
Option E is wrong because the original execution was valid. There was no need for the
witnesses to acknowledge their signatures to each other.
Question 2
A woman died recently. Her valid will gave her entire estate (all assets in her sole name)
to ‘such of my daughters who are living at my death and if more than one in equal shares’.
The woman was a widow, and had one daughter as a result of her marriage. This daughter
died six months before the woman, leaving a daughter (the granddaughter), now aged
12 years. For the last four years the woman has been living with her boyfriend and his
daughter (now aged 16 years). The woman and her boyfriend also have a daughter
together, who is now aged two years.
Which of the following best describes entitlement to the woman’s estate?
A The boyfriend’s daughter and the two- year- old daughter will share the estate.
B The granddaughter will take the whole estate.
C The granddaughter and two- year- old daughter will share the estate, provided that they
each attain the age of 18.
D The two- year- old daughter will take the whole estate.
E The granddaughter and two- year- old daughter will share the estate.
Answer
Option E is correct. The gift to ‘my daughters’ will be interpreted as meaning a gift to only her
own daughters (whether legitimate or not), and not that of her boyfriend (option A therefore
is wrong). Although the first daughter had predeceased, she had left a child who takes in
substitution for her mother (s 33 Wills Act 1837).
Options B and D are wrong in that they wrongly exclude the two- year- old daughter and
granddaughter respectively.
Option C is wrong as although the granddaughter and the two-year-old daughter are entitled
they do not have to satisfy a condition of reaching the age of 18 years because this was not a
stipulation in the will.
Question 3
A husband and wife own their house as beneficial joint tenants. They both make a will in
which each left their entire estate to the other. Sometime later, the husband is convicted of
the wife’s murder.
Which of the following best describes the husband’s entitlement to the wife’s estate?
A The house passes to the husband by survivorship; the gift in the will is forfeit.
B The husband will receive the whole estate if the court decides to modify the effect of
the forfeiture rule in that way.
C The house passes to the husband by survivorship; the gift in the will lapses.
D The husband is not entitled to anything from the estate.
E The house passes to the husband by survivorship; the rest of the estate passes under
the intestacy rules
Answer
Option D is correct. The husband is responsible for the wife’s unlawful killing and therefore
he cannot benefit from the wife’s estate under the forfeiture rule. The forfeiture rule applies to
both the wife’s interest in the house (the effect is that the joint tenancy is severed so the wife’s
interest cannot now pass by survivorship) and to the gift in a will. As a result, options A, C
and E are wrong.
Option B is wrong because the court is not able to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule as
the conviction is for murde
Question 2
A testator made a valid will two years ago leaving everything to his son and appointing
him as his executor. Last month the testator had an argument with his son and decided that
he would disinherit him. Following the argument, the testator asked his neighbour to come
to his house. The testator tore up the original will into tiny pieces in front of his neighbour
and said: ‘That good for nothing son of mine will not get a penny of my money. You are my
witness.’
The testator died suddenly last week, before he had a chance to make another will, and
was survived by his son and three daughters.
The testator’s son has found a copy of the will in the testator’s personal files and wants to
know whether he will inherit his father’s assets under the will.
Which of the following best describes the position in relation to the will?
A The will was not revoked when it was torn up in front of the neighbour as two witnesses
would be needed for an effective revocation.
B The will was revoked when it was torn up in front of the neighbour as physical
destruction of a will in front of one witness is sufficient to revoke a will.
C The will was revoked when it was torn up in front of the neighbour as physical
destruction of a will with the intention to revoke is sufficient to revoke a will.
D Notwithstanding the fact that the will was torn up into tiny pieces, if its contents can be
reconstructed from a copy then an order may be obtained allowing its admission to
probate as a valid will.
E The will was not revoked as the testator did not make another valid will before he died.
Answer
Option C is correct as revocation of a will can be done by ‘burning, tearing or otherwise
destroying the same by the testator … with the intention of revoking the same’. The will was
deliberately destroyed and there was an intention to revoke on the facts.
Option A is wrong as there is no need for witnesses for the physical destruction of a will.
Option B is wrong as there is no formal requirement for witnesses although the neighbour will
be able to provide evidence in relation to the testator’s intention to revoke.
Option D is wrong as the reconstruction of a destroyed will is possible if it had been done by
mistake or by accident but this is not the case here.
Option E is wrong as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation does not appear to apply
on the facts.
Question 3
A testator died last month. His validly executed will contained the following legacy:
£40,000
‘I give £20,000 to my grandson.’
No one can remember when the legacy was altered, but the testator’s initials appear in the
margin adjacent to it. The testator had only one grandson and he survived the testator. The
will left the rest of the estate to charity.
Which of the following statements best explains the grandson’s entitlement under the
legacy?
A He is entitled to nothing because the alteration is presumed to have been made after
execution.
B He is entitled to £20,000 because the original wording is apparent.
C He is entitled to nothing because the legacy has been revoked.
D He is entitled to £40,000 because the alteration has been validly attested.
E He is entitled to nothing because the testator did not write his full signature.
Answer
Option B is correct. The alteration is presumed to have been made after execution. The
alteration is invalid as it has not been properly attested, but as the original wording is
apparent it will stand.
Option A is wrong. Although there is a presumption that an alteration was made after
execution, this does not result in the beneficiary receiving nothing where, as here, the original
wording is apparent.
Option C is wrong because revocation of the legacy would require obliteration of the original
wording.
Option D is wrong because valid attestation requires the signatures (or initials) of the testator
and two witnesses.
Option E is wrong. The use of a full signature would make no difference (initials are sufficient).
The alteration has not been validly attested because of the absence of witnesses, but this
does not result in the beneficiary receiving nothing – see comment on Option B above.
Question 1
A woman died last week. In her valid will, she gave her daughter ‘the property which at my
death constitutes my main residence’ and she gave the residue of her estate to her son. At
the date of the will, the woman owned 4 Church Mews. Before she died, she sold 4 Church
Mews and bought Oak Cottage. Oak Cottage was the woman’s main residence at the time
of her death. The will was silent on the burden of inheritance tax (‘IHT’) and any mortgage
on the residence.
Which of the following best describes the daughter’s entitlement under the will?
A The daughter is not entitled to anything under the will because the gift of 4 Church
Mews has lapsed.
B The daughter is not entitled to anything under the will because the gift of 4 Church
Mews has adeemed.
C The daughter is entitled to Oak Cottage but will take it subject to IHT and any
mortgage.
D The daughter is entitled to Oak Cottage and will take it free from IHT and any
mortgage.
E The daughter is entitled to Oak Cottage and will take it free from IHT but subject to any
mortgage.
Answer
Option E is correct.
The legacy of the house does not fail by ademption because Oak Cottage fulfils the
description of ‘the property which at my death constitutes my main residence’. Where the
will is silent, the legatee takes the property free of IHT (which is borne by the residuary
beneficiary) but subject to any charge (s 35 AEA 1925).
Option A is wrong. Lapse refers to the situation where a beneficiary predeceases the testator,
which did not happen here.
Option B is wrong because the legacy was not of the residence owned at the date of the will.
The wording of the gift prevents ademption unless the testatrix owned no residence at all
when she died.
Option C is wrong because where the will is silent, legatees take their legacies free of IHT (it
is borne by residue).
Option D is wrong because, where the will is silent, the legatee takes the property subject to
any charge (s 35 AEA 1925).
Question 2
A man died last week. In his valid will, he left the residue of his estate to
‘such of my children who are living at my death, and if more than one equally, PROVIDED
that if any child of mine shall die before me leaving a child or children living at their death
such child or children shall provided they attain the age of 18 take by substitution and if
more than one in equal shares the share of my Residuary Estate which their parent would
have taken had they survived me’.
The man was survived by a son, aged 30, who has no children. The man’s daughter
predeceased him, leaving two infant children.
Who is entitled to the residue of the man’s estate?
A The son and the daughter’s estate are each entitled to half of the residue.
B The son is entitled to the whole of the residue.
C The son is entitled to half of the residue. The daughter’s children have vested interests
in the other half of the residue.
D The son is entitled to half of the residue. The daughter’s children have contingent
interests in the other half of the residue.
E The son is entitled to half of the residue. The other half of the residue will pass on the
man’s intestacy.
Answer
Option D is correct. There is a substitutional gift for a predeceased beneficiary’s share
of residue. It will pass to the predeceased beneficiary’s children. The interests of the
daughter’s children are contingent on their attaining the age of 18, and they have not done
so yet because the facts say that they are infants.
Option A is wrong. The substitutional gift does not provide for the daughter’s estate to take her
share of the residue. This would mean that her share would pass under her will or intestacy.
Option B is wrong. The wording of the substitutional gift would only allow the son to take the
daughter’s share if she had no children.
Option C is wrong because, as explained above, the interests of the daughter’s children are
contingent.
Option E is wrong. The substitutional gift has prevented a partial intestacy.
Question 3
A woman died six months ago. She appointed her brother and sister to be her executors,
left each of them £10,000 in her will and gave the residue of her estate to her partner. The
will did not vary the executors’ powers.
In place of the cash legacy, the brother would prefer to take one of the woman’s public
company shareholdings (now worth £10,000 but likely to increase in value in the near
future).
Which of the following best describes the advice that should be given to the brother?
A The statutory power for executors to appropriate assets instead of a cash legacy would
apply provided the woman’s partner consents.
B There is no power for executors to appropriate assets to pecuniary legatees.
C The statutory power for executors to appropriate assets instead of a cash legacy would
apply but, in this case, it would be a breach of the brother’s fiduciary duty.
D The statutory power for executors to make advancements of capital would apply to
allow the brother to give himself the shares instead of the cash legacy.
E The legacy to the brother is void because executors cannot be beneficiaries.
Answer
Option C is correct. Section 41 AEA 1925 gives PRs the power to appropriate any assets in the
estate in or towards satisfaction of any legacy. However, as an executor, the appropriation
would give rise to a conflict of interest, which would be a breach of the brother’s fiduciary
duties.
Option A is wrong. Section 41 AEA 1925 requires only the consent of the beneficiary to whom
the PR is appropriating.
Option B is wrong. Section 41 has not been excluded by the will.
Option D is wrong because this is not an advancement (the payment of trust capital to a
beneficiary earlier than they would otherwise be entitled).
Option E is wrong because executors (unlike witnesses) can be beneficiaries.
A husband, wife, and the wife’s mother bought a house together 20 years ago.
The transfer deed stated that they held the property as joint tenants in law and equity.
The husband and wife separated a month ago, and the husband moved out of the house.
Last week, the wife was killed in a car accident. A few days before her death, the wife had made a will leaving all her property to her new boyfriend.
How is the title to the house now held?
A. The husband and the wife’s mother are joint tenants in law and tenants in common in equity.
B. The husband, the wife’s mother and the new boyfriend are joint tenants in law and tenants in common in equity.
C. The wife’s mother and the new boyfriend are joint tenants in law and equity.
D. The wife’s mother and the husband are joint tenants in law and equity.
E. The wife’s mother and the new boyfriend are joint tenants in law and tenants in common in equity.
D - The wife’s mother and the husband are joint tenants in law and equity.
A leasehold flat was owned by a brother and sister as tenants in common in equal shares. The sister died last month and under the terms of her will, the whole of her estate is given to her adult daughter absolutely. It is estimated that the flat is worth £200,000 as a very similar flat in the same block sold for that figure last month. The sister’s estate will be subject to Inheritance Tax (IHT).
If the estimated worth of the flat is correct what will be the value of the sister’s half share for IHT purposes?
A. £100,000 less a percentage discount to reflect the fact that the flat was co-owned at the sister’s death.
B. £100,000 as no discount is available because of the application of the related property rules between brother and sister.
C. £100,000 as no discount is available because of the application of the related property rules between a mother and daughter.
D. £100,000 as no discount is available because of the application of the related property rules which apply when more than two close relatives are connected with the ownership of a property.
E. £100,000 as no discount is available because the flat is leasehold.
A - £100,000 less a percentage discount to reflect the fact that the flat was co-owned at the sister’s death.
