Continue reading "Wills: Care and share"
Goss-Custard & anr v Templeman & ors [2020] WTLR 441
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2020 #179Lord Templeman, who was a former member of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, was the father of the second and third defendants and the father-in-law of the first defendant. In 1996 he was remarried to a distant cousin, Sheila Edworthy, and moved home to live with her in a property called Mellowstone, Exeter, which she had inherited from her second husband, John Edworthy. Following his second marriage, Lord Templeman became very much part of his wife’s family and developed close bonds with her step-daughters, the claimants. On 3 December 2004 Lord Templeman and his wife made c...
Goss-Custard & anr v Templeman [2018] WTLR 893
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2018 #173The late Lord Templeman (‘the deceased’) died on 4 June 2014 aged 94, leaving a will, dated 22 August 2008 (‘the 2008 Will’). The claimants commenced proceedings seeking an order pronouncing for the validity of the 2008 Will in solemn form. The 1st and 2nd defendants defended the claim on the basis that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity both when he gave his will instructions on 11 August 2008 and when the 2008 Will was executed. They counterclaimed for an order pronouncing for the validity of an earlier will, dated 25 April 2001 (‘the 2001 Will’) and a codicil to it, dated 3 Dec...
Burns v Burns [2016] EWCA Civ 37
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2016 #160On 21 May 2010 the deceased died, aged 89, leaving two sons: the appellant and the respondent. The respondent claimed pronouncement in solemn form of an alleged will of the deceased dated 26 July 2005, which divided the deceased’s estate equally between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant challenged the validity of the 2005 will on the basis that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the date of its purported execution and on the basis that the deceased did not know and approve of the contents of the same.
In September 2003 social services began to assist with t...
Walker & anr v Badmin & ors claim no HC121304229
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2015 #148Elizabeth Jane Walker (Mrs Walker) was born on 25 March 1956. She married John Walker in 1981, and with him she had two daughters, Jennifer and Alison. In 2007, she left her husband and began to live with Michael Badmin (Mr Badmin).
On 20 June 2009, Mrs Walker was diagnosed with a terminal, malignant brain tumour. Following the prescription of medication, she began to suffer from symptoms of psychosis. However, her condition gradually improved, and she was discharged from hospital on 20 July 2009. Mrs Walker’s health begun to deteriorate in Autumn 2009. By October, she was bed-bou...
Jeffery v Jeffery [2013] EWHC 1942 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2013 #134This was a retrial. The original trial in November 2012 was conducted in the absence of the defendant Andrew Jeffrey.
Daphne Jeffrey died in February 2010, aged 76, having divorced her husband David ten days before her death. She had two children – Nicholas and Andrew. She made a will in 2007 appointing Nicholas and Christopher Eyre (a friend left nothing in the will) as her executors and leaving her estate between Nicholas and Andrew’s three children. Prior to that she had made wills in 1982, 2002 and 2004. In 2008 she gifted two properties to Nicholas.
David and Daphne se...
Cowderoy v Cranfield [2011] EWHC 1616 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2011 #115Mrs Blofield (D) was in her 80’s and owned her own home worth around £140,000. Her only son (R) was an alcoholic and seriously ill. He moved into her house in 2002 and remained there until he died, intestate, on 5 August 2006. He had fathered several children. One was adopted and others taken into care but they paid no part in his life or that of his mother, D. He did, however, have a legitimate daughter, the claimant, Mrs Leigh Cowderoy, (C) who inherited his estate. Relations between C and R were strained and there was very little contact between C and D because of this although ...