Judges Have No Power to Rewrite Valid Wills – Guideline High Court Ruling

27th April 2022 By

Judges have no power to rewrite your will after your death so as to achieve a result which, in their view, better reflects your wishes. The High Court made that point in upholding the validity of a Parkinson’s disease sufferer’s will although, at least in mathematical terms, it did not achieve equality between his four children.

By his will, the father left his beloved smallholding – which had recently been valued informally at £50,000 – to one of his sons. In an apparent attempt at even-handedness, he left each of his other children £50,000 in cash. However, by the time of his death six years later, aged 84, the smallholding was worth a six-figure sum.

Challenging the validity of the will, another of his sons argued that, due to his by then terminal illness, his father lacked the mental capacity required to make it. He said that his father was always scrupulous in treating his children fairly and that the unequal division effected by the will was a powerful indication that he neither fully understood nor approved of its contents.

Ruling on the matter, the Court noted that it had no discretion to rewrite a valid will to better reflect what it thought the father might have wanted if he could have foreseen the increase in the smallholding’s value. An oversight or a change in circumstances after the making of the will was not enough to invalidate it.

The Court acknowledged that the apparent mathematical equality achieved by the will no longer existed when the father died. However, it was not possible to read his mind and there were a number of possible reasons, including oversight, why he did not make any provision for the chance of the smallholding rising in value.

In upholding the validity of the will, the Court noted that it was drafted by a solicitor in a manner that faithfully reflected the father’s instructions. Despite his illness, he had the capacity to make a valid will. The fact that the consequences of the will after his death may not have been as he expected did not prevent the Court from finding that he knew what was in the document, and approved it.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...