Rea v Rea & ors [2024] WTLR 701
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2024 #195Anna Rea had made wills dated 29 May 1986 (the 1986 will) and 7 December 2015 (the 2015 will).
At first instance, Anna’s daughter (the appellant) claimed to propound the 2015 will in solemn form. Her brothers (the respondents) counterclaimed to set aside the 2015 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence, and fraudulent calumny. They sought to propound the 1986 will.
The claim had previously been tried and then appealed, ultimately to the Court of Appeal, where a retrial was ordered.
On the retrial, HHJ Hodge KC fou...
Contentious probate: Conflicts between trustees and beneficiaries
Continue reading "Contentious probate: Conflicts between trustees and beneficiaries"
Contentious probate: Beyond the grave
Continue reading "Contentious probate: Beyond the grave"
Ball & ors v Ball & ors [2017] WTLR 891
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169The Deceased was married to James Ball. They had had eleven children, including the three claimants and eight of the nine defendants. In or around 1991, the family split, when the three claimants reported their father to the police for sexually abusing them when they were younger. The Deceased felt that the complaints were exaggerated, and was annoyed that they had been made public. As a result, on 27 May 1992 the Deceased made a will excluding those three claimants from benefit, dividing her estate between her eight remaining children and one of her grandsons. The will was professional ...
Legg v Burton [2017] WTLR 1017
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169The testatrix had two daughters, the first and second claimants. In July 2000, the testatrix and her husband made wills in favour of the survivor, and subject to that, in favour of the claimants in equal shares.
The husband died in May 2001. Between 2001 and 2004, the testatrix made 13 further wills. These progressively favoured the defendants (who were two of the grandsons of the testatrix and the partner of one of them), at the expense of the claimants. The last of these wills was made on 12 December 2014, when she made a further will under which the claimants took a legacy of £...
Marley v Rawlings & anr [2014] WTLR 1511
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2014 #144Mr Rawlings (the deceased) and his wife Mrs Rawlings made mirror wills in 1999. Mrs Rawlings died in 2003 and her estate passed to her husband. However, upon the death of Mr Rawlings in 2006, it became apparent that the solicitor involved in the preparation of the wills had accidentally presented Mr and Mrs Rawlings with, and each had signed, the will intended for the other. The validity of the will was subsequently challenged by the deceased’s two sons, who were not entitled under the will but stood to inherit his £70,000 estate under the rules of intestacy. The Supreme Court held that ...
Haider v Syed
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2014 #138This was a challenge to the purported will of Mrs Naseem Syed Khan (the deceased) on the basis that it was a forgery. The deceased died on 17 July 2008. Mr Jafar Ali Khan (Mr Khan) was the deceased’s husband. Mr Khan had survived the deceased and had taken out letters of administration in respect of her estate on the basis that she had died intestate. Mr Khan died on 8 January 2011 leaving a will dated 2 September 2010.
Mr Syed Ali Haider (the claimant) was the deceased’s nephew. Mr Mehdi Hassan Syed (the defendant) was the sole executor and main beneficiary of the la...
Re McKeen [2013] EWHC 3639 (Ch)
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2014 #138The main action was a contentious probate dispute in which the defendant, who was the younger sister of the deceased, sought to overturn all of his five wills on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity. The deceased had suffered from severe schizophrenia throughout his lifetime. The claimants were the residuary legatees of his final will, entitling them to the lion-share of the deceased’s considerable estate. In his main judgment, the judge accepted that the deceased’s condition was severe. He acknowledged that this placed the burden of proof on the claimants to establis...