fbpx

Ambiguity in Widower's Poorly Drafted Will Results in Family Stalemate

13th October 2020 By

The whole point of engaging a professional to draft your will is to make your wishes clear in precise and unambiguous terms. If your will falls below that high standard the result, as a High Court ruling showed, can be family stalemate after you are gone.

The case concerned a widower who died without children, leaving an estate worth over £600,000. By his will, he made some modest charitable gifts and bequeathed the remainder to ‘such all of my nephew’s and niece’s children’. It was agreed that the apostrophes in that phrase were misplaced and that he had not intended to benefit the children of only one niece and one nephew.

As at the date of his death, there were seven children of his nieces and nephews by blood who were clearly entitled to inherit under the will. However, an issue arose as to whether he had also intended to include the eight children of his deceased wife’s nephews and nieces in the class of beneficiaries. With the consent of all concerned, that issue was submitted to the Court for determination.

Ruling on the matter, the Court noted that, as a matter of strict and proper English, the words ‘nephew’ and ‘niece’ describe the son or daughter of a brother or sister. It was, however, permissible to consider the background context in deciding whether the words as used in the will were intended to have a wider meaning.

The Court noted that the man and his wife had been married for 46 years and that she had left him the whole of her substantial estate. In all their previous wills, they had benefited their own and their spouse’s blood relatives equally. The man made his final will only eight months after his wife’s death.

In ruling that the beneficiaries of the man’s will should include the children of his nieces and nephews by marriage, the Court found it unlikely that he would have wished to disinherit his wife’s family so soon after her death and for no apparent reason. His estate thus stood to be divided between 15 beneficiaries.

The Court noted that the crucial clause of the will contained grammatical and punctuation errors and was poorly drafted. The difficulty that had arisen could very easily have been avoided had the beneficiaries been specifically named. The case graphically illustrated the dangers of giving instructions for the drafting of a will over the phone, rather than to a solicitor face to face.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tenants Can Purchase Freehold When Landlord Cannot Be Found

11th June, 2024 By

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives qualifying leaseholders the right to join together to buy the freehold of their properties – a process known as collective enfranchisement. A recent case demonstrated that this right can be exercised even when the landlord cannot be found. The leaseholders of two flats in a terraced house wished to purchase it from the landlord, but were unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore could not serve notice on him under Section 13 of the Act. They therefore applied for an...

Court Refuses to Set Aside Divorce Order Applied for by Mistake

6th June, 2024 By

While the courts have a range of powers to set aside orders, they will only exercise them in limited circumstances. In a somewhat surprising case that has attracted much comment, the High Court declined to set aside a final order of divorce that had been applied for by mistake. A couple separated in January 2023, after more than 21 years of marriage. In October that year, while financial remedy proceedings were still ongoing, the wife's legal representatives inadvertently applied for a final order of divorce in respect of her instead...

Waiting Time for Grants of Probate Falls

3rd June, 2024 By

Following concerns last year about delays in processing probate applications, recent figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service show that waiting times for grants of probate are continuing to improve. The average time from submission of a probate application to probate being granted fell to 11.3 weeks in March 2024, a decrease from 13.7 weeks in February and 13.8 weeks in January. This is the lowest figure since March 2023, when the average was 10.8 weeks. The longest waiting time since then was in November, at 15.8 weeks: that month,...

Late Appeal Against Tax Penalties Rejected

31st May, 2024 By

It is incumbent on taxpayers to make sure they fully comply with their obligations to file returns and pay any tax due. The point was illustrated by a recent case in which a taxpayer whose return had not been received by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) failed to persuade the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that he should be permitted to appeal against the resulting penalties. On the evening of 31 January 2014, the man had completed his 2012/13 Income Tax return on HMRC's website. Shortly afterwards he went to Cyprus, and...