Wills and Estate Administration Flashcards
A man died this month. He made a will two years ago, leaving all assets to a friend and nothing to his grandchildren. The friend had threatened the man with injury in order to force him to make the will. The man’s grandchildren wish to challenge the validity of the man’s will.
Which of the following best describes the validity of the man’s will?
The grandchildren can challenge the validity of the will on the basis of lack of proper intention because of duress.
Feedback:
(E) The grandchildren can challenge the validity of the will on the basis of duress. For a will to be valid, the testator must have acted with an intention to make the particular will. A challenger may prove lack of intention by showing the testator made the will as a result of duress (that is, as a consequence of force or a threat of force), due to fraud, or because of undue influence (meaning coercion or pressure overpowered the testator’s free will). The grandchildren can, therefore, challenge the will on the basis of duress if they can prove that the man was injured or threatened with injury in order to force him to make the will. (A) is incorrect. A threat of injury is sufficient to establish duress, and the man did not need to have actually been injured. (B) is incorrect, as it may be possible to challenge the will on the basis of duress. (C) is incorrect. A will may be challenged for lack of capacity (that is, that the testator was unable to make decisions for themselves because of impairments of the brain), but the fear that the man experienced would not fall within this ground. (D) is incorrect. Undue influence involves coercion or pressure that overpowers the testator’s free will—the testator is psychologically or mentally affected. When physical injury or the threat of physical injury is involved, the proper basis for a challenge is duress.
A man made a valid will seven years ago. In the following years, he has lost touch with some of the beneficiaries and made new friends. He is now considering revoking his will.
Which of the following events is most likely to lead to revocation of the will?
The man tears up the back page of the will, which includes his signature and those of the witnesses.
Feedback:
(D) The man tearing up the back page of the will which includes his and the witnesses’ signatures is the most likely of the events listed to lead to revocation of the will. A testator can revoke a will by intentionally destroying it. Destruction of part of the will may result in a partial revocation or a complete revocation if a sufficiently substantial or vital part is destroyed. Whilst only the back page of the will has been destroyed, this page includes the testator’s and witnesses’ signatures, which are vital parts of the will. This is likely to result in the revocation of the will. (A) is incorrect. The testator must have an intention to revoke the will at the time the will is destroyed. The will was destroyed in error, so the man lacked the intention to revoke his will at this time. (B) is incorrect. The destruction of a will by someone other than the testator must be done in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction. The destruction of the will was not at the man’s direction. (C) is incorrect. When a will is destroyed at the request of the testator, the testator must be present at the destruction in order for the revocation to take effect. (E) is incorrect. A will must be fully destroyed in order to be revoked, and simply writing “no longer valid” on it is insufficient to achieve revocation.
A man made a will five years ago, leaving his assets to various family members. The man’s brother died last year, and the man himself died last month. The man’s brother was married and had a daughter, and his wife and daughter are still alive.
The man’s will included the following provisions:
(1) I give my car to my brother, but if he fails to survive me, then to his daughter.
(2) I give the remainder of my estate to my son.
There are no other relevant clauses.
Which of the following best describes entitlement to the man’s estate?
The brother’s daughter will inherit the car, and the son will inherit the remainder of the estate.
Feedback:
(C) The brother’s daughter will inherit the car, and the son will inherit the remainder of the estate. If a beneficiary has predeceased the testator, the gift to them will lapse—that is, fail. However, a gift will not lapse where the will includes a substitutional gift. Clause 1 of the will includes a substitutional gift to the brother’s daughter, if the brother dies before the man. Accordingly, the gift of the car will not lapse, and the car will pass to the man’s brother’s daughter. The son will inherit the remainder of the estate. (A), (B), and (E) are incorrect, as the substitutional gift in clause 1 of the will takes effect, and the man’s brother’s daughter is solely entitled to the car. (D) is incorrect. The death of a beneficiary will not affect the validity of the will itself.
A man recently died. He made a valid will four years ago. It included the following relevant provisions:
(1) I give my car to my brother.
(2) I give the remainder of my estate to my sister.
The man’s sister died last year, but she is survived by her daughter. The man is survived by his wife and a brother.
How will the man’s estate be distributed?
The brother will inherit the car, but the residuary estate will pass under the rules of intestacy.
Feedback:
(C) The brother will inherit the car, and the residuary estate will pass under the rules of intestacy. If a beneficiary has predeceased the testator, the gift to them will lapse—that is, fail. Here, the man’s sister has died before him, so the gift of the residuary estate to the sister will lapse. As the residuary estate is not, therefore, disposed of, it passes under the intestacy rules. (A) is incorrect. The brother will inherit only the car, and the residuary estate passes under the intestacy rules. (B) is incorrect. The residuary estate does not automatically pass to the sister’s daughter following her death. If a testator makes a gift to a child or other issue who die before the testator and leave living issue, the living issue receive the gift. This rule does not apply here because the man’s sister is not his issue. Instead, the gift of the residuary estate will lapse, and the intestacy rules will apply to determine who should receive it. (D) is incorrect. The lapse of the gift of the residuary estate will not affect the validity of the will itself, and it remains valid. The intestacy rules apply only to the lapsed gift of the residuary estate. (E) is incorrect. The brother will inherit the car, but the intestacy rules—not the man’s wife— determine the distribution of the residuary estate.
A woman died intestate last week. The woman was survived by two sons (aged 10 and 20), her parents, and her sister.
Who is entitled to share in the woman’s estate?
The woman’s sons only.
Feedback:
(A) Only the woman’s sons are entitled to share in the woman’s estate. When a person dies intestate without a spouse or civil partner, the strict order of entitlement under the intestacy rules applies to determine who will inherit the estate. In this situation, the woman’s issue (her two sons, regardless of their age) are entitled to the whole of her estate, and no other relatives have any entitlement. (B) and (E) are incorrect. If a person dies intestate and they have no spouse, their estate passes to their issue; parents take only if the deceased died both without a spouse and without surviving issue. (C) is incorrect for that reason and also because siblings take only if the deceased had no surviving spouse, issue, or parents. (D) is incorrect because both sons are entitled to share in the woman’s estate; it does not matter that one son is under 18. Also, the parents have no entitlement to the estate.
A woman died last month. Her valid will appointed her sister as her executor, but she died several years ago. The will leaves £5,000 to her favourite charity and the rest of her estate to her three children, provided they reach the age of 21. The woman was survived by her husband and her three sons, aged 25, 22, and 18. All are keen to administer the woman’s estate.
Which of the following best describes who is eligible to administer the woman’s estate?
The 25-year-old and 22-year-old sons have better eligibility to administer the estate than the 18-year-old son.
Feedback:
(C) The 25-year-old and 22-year-old sons have better eligibility to administer the estate than the 18-year-old son. The woman left a valid will, but, due to the death of her sister, it fails to appoint an executor who can administer her estate. Consequently, the woman’s estate will be administered by an administrator (rather than an executor) under a grant of letters of administration with will annexed. The order of entitlement to a grant of letters of administration with will annexed is set out in rule 20 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (‘NCPR’). Under this rule, her sons, as the residuary beneficiaries of the will, have the best entitlement of the surviving relatives to administer the estate. However, when there is more than one person of equal rank, but one has a vested interest and one has a contingent interest in the estate, the court generally prefers an application by the vested interest beneficiary. Here, the 18-year-old son has only a contingent interest, as he is not yet 21, and so an application from one of the older sons will be preferred. (A) is, therefore, incorrect. The three sons are not equally eligible to administer the estate. (B) is incorrect. The husband is not a beneficiary of the will, and so he does not have the best entitlement to act as administrator under rule 20 NCPR. (D) is incorrect. The 25-year-old and 22-year-old sons are equally entitled because they have both reached age 21. (E) is incorrect. Under rule 20 NCPR, the woman’s sons have the best entitlement to act as administrators.
An elderly woman died last year, leaving an estate worth £750,000 to various friends and relatives in her valid will. The woman’s will appoints her sister as the executor. Although the woman died nearly a year ago, the sister has taken no steps to apply for a grant or administer the estate, and she says that she is too busy to do so. The woman’s children are the main beneficiaries and are keen to see the administration of the estate progress.
What is the best course of action for the woman’s children to take to ensure that the administration of the estate can progress?
Seek a citation to accept or refuse a grant.
Feedback:
(D) The children’s best course of action is to seek a citation to accept or refuse a grant. A citation to accept or refuse a grant is used to clear off a person, such as the woman’s sister, with a prior right to any type of grant who has not applied for a grant and shows no intention of doing so. If the sister does not then apply for a grant, the children can apply for a grant instead. (A) is incorrect. A caveat is used to stop the issue of a grant, rather than force this. (B) is incorrect. This would not be an appropriate order to seek as the sister has said she is unable to administer the estate, and she cannot be forced to act as executor. (C) is incorrect. A citation to take probate is not appropriate here. It is used when the named executor has already lost their right to renounce probate, having intermeddled in the estate. Here, it is apparent that the sister has taken no steps in relation to the estate administration and so would not have lost the right to renounce probate. (E) is incorrect. The children cannot seek a grant of probate themselves, as they are not the executors named in the will.
A woman died five months ago, leaving her entire large estate to charity. She is survived by her partner. They were not married but had been in a relationship for three years. For the past two years, they lived together in the partner’s house. The partner is 56 and has a full-time job. The partner paid the household expenses, as the woman had retired. The partner is bringing a claim against the woman’s estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the Act’).
The woman had no other close relatives. What is the likely outcome of the partner’s claim?
The partner is unlikely to be awarded a large sum from the estate, as he does not require a sum for his maintenance.
Feedback:
(D) The partner is unlikely to be awarded a large sum from the estate as he does not require a sum for his maintenance. When hearing a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, the court will consider whether the will or intestacy has failed to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant. In the case of unmarried partners, the standard applied is the financial provision required for the partner’s maintenance such that they can live decently and comfortably according to their situation. This is measured objectively. Here, the partner was not financially maintained by the woman; he has a full-time job, owns his house, and paid the household expenses. Consequently, the fact that the woman did not maintain the partner is likely to lead to the partner failing to be awarded a large sum from the estate. (A) is incorrect. Only spouses or civil partners can be awarded a financial sum similar to the sum that they would have received on divorce. This does not apply to unmarried partners. (B) is incorrect. The court will focus on the need of the partner to be maintained rather than the existence of other relatives. (C) is incorrect. Although the length of the relationship is considered, the court’s focus is on the partner’s need for maintenance. (E) is incorrect. The fact that the partner lived with the woman is relevant, but the primary consideration is the partner’s need for maintenance.
A woman’s will leaves £8,000 to a beneficiary, who is also one of two executors. There is very little cash within the estate, but the woman owned a large quantity of valuable jewellery, which is not left to any specific beneficiary. The executors decide that it would be best for the executor-beneficiary to receive a ring which is worth £8,000 instead of the cash gift. The will contains no provisions on appropriation.
Which of the following statements best sets out the legal position in relation to this situation?
The ring is not a permissible alternative gift.
Feedback:
(E) The ring is not a permissible alternative gift. The executors have the power of appropriation. This means that they can use an alternative asset to satisfy a legacy or interest in the estate, provided no specific beneficiary is affected. However, unless the will provides otherwise, it is not permissible for a PR to make an appropriation in their own favour to satisfy a pecuniary legacy with an asset other than cash or the equivalent of cash, such as government stocks or quoted shares. Here, the gift to the executor-beneficiary is a pecuniary gift of £8,000. Since the will is silent regarding appropriation, the executors cannot substitute the ring for the cash gift, and instead need to use an asset that is a cash equivalent. (B) is therefore incorrect. (A) is incorrect. The power of appropriation does apply to beneficiaries who are also executors, but it is subject to the limitation previously explained. (C) is incorrect. The ring is not a valid appropriation in this case. (D) is incorrect. The beneficiary would retain his entitlement if the alternative gift is refused.
A man’s valid will makes a gift of £10,000 to his brother. Five years after making the will, the man crosses through “£10,000” and writes “£15,000” above it. No witness was present at the time that this change was made. The wording relating to the original gift remains legible.
Which of the following statements best describes the effect of this alteration?
The brother will receive £10,000.
Feedback:
(B) The brother will receive the original gift of £10,000. An unattested alteration is a change made to a will without the formalities of the testator’s signature and two witnesses. An unattested alteration made after a will was executed is ineffective. If the original words are apparent, they remain a valid part of the will. Here, the man made an unattested alteration after the will was executed, but the original gift of £10,000 is still legible. Therefore, the original gift remains valid. (A) is incorrect. It does not matter how an unattested alteration is written; it is invalid in both ink and pencil. (C) is incorrect. Because details of the original gift remain visible, the gift of £10,000 remains valid. (D) is incorrect. The alteration will not invalidate the will. (E) is incorrect. The alteration was not properly executed, and so the revised gift does not take effect. If the man had executed the alteration according to the statutory will formalities, the revised gift would be valid.
A woman made a valid will, but she is now thinking of revoking it after an argument with some of the beneficiaries.
Which of the following actions is most likely to fully revoke her will?
She validly executes a new will which includes an express statement that it revokes all previous wills.
Feedback:
(B) The woman can fully revoke her will by validly executing a new will which includes an express statement that it revokes all previous wills. A valid new will which expressly revokes previous wills fully revokes the earlier will. (A) is incorrect. A testator can revoke a will by intentionally destroying it. Destruction of part of the will may result in a partial revocation or a complete revocation if a sufficiently substantial or vital part is destroyed. Whether the destruction of the front page of the will results in a partial or complete revocation depends on what the front page of the will stated. Therefore, this is not the action most likely to fully revoke the woman’s will. (C) is incorrect. When a will is destroyed by someone other than the testator, the testator must be present in order for revocation to occur. (D) is incorrect. The will or page must be fully destroyed in order to be revoked, and simply writing “cancelled” on it is insufficient. (E) is incorrect. The testator must have an intention to revoke the will at the time the will is destroyed. The will was shredded by mistake, so this intention was missing here. It does not matter that the testator was later glad that the will was shredded.
A woman died last month, owning a house, a Toyota car, and £50,000 in a bank account. Her will, made 10 years ago, included the following provisions:
(1) I give my Audi car, registration number VE17 XKD, to my cousin.
(2) I give the remainder of my estate to my daughter.
There are no other relevant clauses.
What will be the result of the gift of the Audi car under clause (1) of the will?
The gift of the Audi car will adeem.
Feedback:
(B) The gift of the Audi will adeem. The gift of the Audi to the cousin is a specific legacy – a gift of a specified part of the estate that is clearly identified at the time of the will’s execution. Under the doctrine of ademption, a specific gift will fail if it is no longer part of the testator’s estate, is subject to a binding contract for sale, or no longer meets the description in the will. As the woman no longer owned the specific Audi at the date of her death, the specific legacy will fail, and the cousin will receive nothing. (A) is therefore incorrect. (C) is incorrect. Lapse of a gift arises when a beneficiary dies before the testator, which has not occurred here. (D) is incorrect because it states the rule for general legacies. If the subject of a general legacy is not in the estate, the beneficiary is entitled to require the executor to purchase it if the estate has sufficient funds. (E) is incorrect because the cousin is not entitled to a sum of money instead of the Audi car.
A woman made a will leaving a gift of “£5,000 to each of the children of my brother who attain age 21, whenever born”. The woman has recently died. The woman’s brother has no children currently.
Which of the statements about this gift is correct?
The gift will fail if the brother dies having had no children who reach age 21.
Feedback:
(B) The gift will fail if the brother dies having had no children who reach age 21. When a will leaves a gift to each member of a class of beneficiaries who meets a condition, the class closing rules apply to exclude beneficiaries who are not living when the class closes. Generally in this situation, the gift fails when there is no one in the class at the date of the testator’s death. This would result in the gift to the brother’s children failing, as he had no children on the date when the woman died. However, a testator can exclude the class closing rules by using a specific provision to this effect in the will. That is the case here – the will leaves the gift to the children “whenever born”. Therefore, it does not matter that the brother currently has no children, and the gift will extend to any future children of the brother. (A) is incorrect. The gift would fail if the testator had not included the phrase “whenever born”. Instead, the gift is potentially valid, despite the brother currently having no children, as he may have children in the future. (C) is incorrect for the reasons explained above. The class of beneficiaries will not close when the brother’s first child reaches the age of 21 because of the words “whenever born”. Thus, any child who attains age 21 will receive the gift. (D) is incorrect. Gifts of this type can be valid. (E) is incorrect because the will requires the beneficiaries to reach age 21, not age 18.
An 80-year-old man and his 70-year-old wife made wills last year. The wife’s will leaves all of her assets to her husband. The husband’s will leaves all of his assets to his wife. Last week the couple were killed in a motorway accident. They both died almost instantly, before anyone was able to reach the scene of the accident. Consequently, it was impossible to determine whether the husband or wife died first. The couple married late in life, and they each had children with previous spouses. Both had no other living relatives.
Who will inherit their estates?
The wife’s children will inherit both estates under the intestacy rules.
Feedback:
(A) The wife’s children will inherit both estates under the intestacy rules. If a beneficiary has predeceased the testator, the gift to them will lapse. In a simultaneous death situation where it is impossible to determine who died first out of a testator and beneficiary, the law of ‘commorientes’ provides that the younger person is taken to survive the elder person for succession purposes. Thus, here the husband will be deemed to have died first because he is older. His assets pass to his wife according to his will. As the husband will be treated as having predeceased his wife, the gift in her will to him lapses. Because that was the only gift in the woman’s will, the will fails, so her estate – which now includes the husband’s estate – passes by intestacy to her children. (B), (D), and (E) are, therefore, incorrect. (C) is incorrect because the husband’s will does not fail due to lapse. The husband is assumed to have died before his wife, and so she is treated as a living beneficiary at the time of his death.
A woman makes a will, which is witnessed by three witnesses: two of the woman’s friends and the husband of the woman’s daughter. The will leaves the woman’s estate equally to the woman’s three children.
Which of the following best describes the validity of the will and its gifts?
The will is valid, and the three children will each receive an equal share of the woman’s estate, as the will has been appropriately witnessed.
Feedback:
(A) The will is valid, and the three children will each receive an equal share of the woman’s estate, as the will has been appropriately witnessed. A gift in a will fails if the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s spouse or civil partner witnesses the will. However, the gift does not fail if, ignoring the attestation by the beneficiary or spouse or civil partner, there are at least two other witnesses who are not beneficiaries or their spouses or civil partners. Here, a beneficiary’s spouse, the daughter’s husband, witnessed the will, but it was also witnessed by two friends who are not will beneficiaries. Therefore, the will is valid, and the gift to the woman’s daughter will take effect even though her husband was a witness. (B), (C), and (D) are, therefore, incorrect. (E) is incorrect. Although the will is valid, and the three children will each receive an equal share of the woman’s estate, the spouse of a beneficiary cannot validly witness a will. It is only the fact that there were two other witnesses that enables the gift to the woman’s daughter to take effect.
