fbpx

Lost Will Means Court Hearing in Family Dispute

3rd May 2019 By Arman Khosravi

The impossibility of asking a deceased person what their real intentions were makes the value of these being clear before death quite obvious, as a recent case shows.

It involved an elderly widow who died in 2016. After her death, her family discovered an envelope containing a copy of a will dated 2008 and an unsigned draft of the will which her solicitors had prepared for her. The original could not be found, however.  She had added a codicil to the will in 2010 and the original codicil was found in the envelope. At the time the codicil was made, the copy of the will had been endorsed by the firm of solicitors to the effect that it was a true copy of the original will. The codicil replaced one executor with another but made no other change.

The problem was, as the judge hearing the case put it, that ‘if a will was last traced to the possession of the testator and is not forthcoming at his death, there is, prima facie, a presumption, in the absence of circumstances tending to a contrary conclusion, that the testator destroyed it with the intention to revoke it’.

Were the will to be revoked, the woman’s estate would be distributed differently between family members, as the rules of intestacy would apply. It was claimed by some family members that she had destroyed the will on purpose, with the intention of revoking it. In practical terms, the main protagonists in the dispute were arguing over the difference between a one-third share in the woman’s estate and a one-quarter share.

The judge commented, "The estate is not large, in money terms the difference in outcome may well be disproportionate to the costs involved but it is a sad fact that, in claims over the division of an estate, like many boundary disputes, the quest for a solution based on commercial pragmatism is not given the weight it may deserve."

After considering the evidence, the judge ruled that the certified copy of the will should stand, there being insufficient evidence that the woman had intentionally destroyed the will to revoke it.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...