Guthrie v Morel & ors [2015] EWHC 3172 (Ch)

Analysis

The claimant sought by way of summary judgment a declaration as to the true construction of a will or alternatively an order for rectification of the will pursuant to s20(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

The deceased died on 20 July 2011. His will took the form of a letter addressed to a solicitor. Both parties accepted that the document was a will and had been admitted to probate. One of the executors obtained a grant of probate on 23 August 2012.

The will contained a bequest in the following terms: ‘My property 87 Loma Del Rey, Alcadesa, Spain I bequeath to Carol Guthrie’. However the deceased never owned a property of that address. He did however own two properties in Loma Del Rey, one with an address of 81 and the other with an address of 33. The bequest immediately following that of 87 Loma Del Rey was in relation to number 33 and stated: ‘My property 33 Loma Del Rey, Alcadesa, Spain I bequeath equally to my three sons’ (the defendants).

The claimant contended that the will intended to deal with all of the deceased’s assets and that in the circumstances the use of the expression ’87 Loma Del Rey’ must have been intended to be a reference to the deceased’s property in Loma Del Ray which was not otherwise dealt with by the will. Since 33 was otherwise dealt with, the reference to 87 Loma Del Rey was intended to be understood as meaning 81 Loma Del Rey. The claimant contended that if such were not the proper meaning to be attributed to the deceased’s language then the deceased had failed in his purpose of writing his will, which purpose was to deal with all his estate.

The defendants contended that:

1) this was not a matter suitable for summary judgment since the case was not clear or straight forward;

2) the deceased did not intend the letter to his solicitor to be his will at all and no conclusion on the point could be reached without full disclosure and cross examination. The defendants relied inter alia on the language of the document;

3) the deceased intended the words ’87 Loma Del Rey’ to refer to the property with that address and not to any other property and thus the deceased intended to die partially intestate and that the claimant would not receive a bequest of 81 Loma Del Rey. The defendants relied on evidence that the deceased was a very careful man and that copies of the will contained later alterations.

Held:

1. 1) The court’s approach to construction of wills is the same as it is to the interpretation of contracts and other documents, as supplemented by the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (Marley v Rawlings [2014] WTLR 299referred to).
2. 2) Regarding the defendants’ argument that the deceased did not intend the letter to be his will, that point fails for two reasons: (i) probate was granted in relation to the will and there has been no appeal against the grant and so it is not open to the administrators to contend that the document is not a will at all. Moreover, the deceased is to be taken as intending the natural consequences of his acts. (ii) The defendants’ contentions about full disclosure and what may be elicited from cross examination of the claimant amount to nothing more than Micawberism. There was insufficient basis to contend that the action would be determined differently at trial.
3. 3) Regarding the defendants’ argument that the deceased intended the words of the 87 Loma Del Rey bequest to refer to other property and deliberately result in partial intestacy, this argument was mere surmise. There was evidence in relation to a Spanish will which was never properly executed which undermined the defendants’ surmise that the deceased never intended to bequeath 81 Loma Del Rey to the claimant. The reliance on evidence that the deceased was a very careful man was a weak point. There was no evidence at all regarding the purpose or rationale behind the later alterations to a copy of the will.
4. 4) The deceased intended by his will to deal with his entire estate and he intended the words ‘My property 87 Loma Del Rey’ to be understood as a reference to his villa at 81 Loma Del Rey and not to some other property which he did not own.

JUDGMENT JOHN BALDWIN QC: [1] This action concerns a bequest made in favour of the claimant, Carol Guthrie, in the will of Brian John Thomas Morel, deceased, dated 17 January 2003. The bequest is in these terms: ‘My property 87 Loma Del Rey, Alcadesa, Spain I bequeath to Carol Guthrie’. Now, Mr Morel has never …

Continue reading "Guthrie v Morel & ors [2015] EWHC 3172 (Ch)"