Analysis
Mr and Mrs L made wills in mirror terms leaving the property that they owned as tenants in common and which was their only substantial asset on trust for the survivor to live in and thereafter to Mrs L’s children from a previous relationship. There were substitutionary provisions that benefited one of Mrs L’s grandchildren, his father, Mrs L’s son, having died.
Mrs L died. Mr L brought rectification proceedings under s20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 on the basis that Mrs L had not intended for his life interest to be cut down on his cohabitation or remarriage and that this was a clerical error on the part of the will writer. Mrs L’s children defended the claim but were not represented. The grandchild was, however, represented.
Held (rectifying the will)
- 1. Mrs L had not intended for Mr L’s life interest to be cut down on his remarriage or cohabitation: this had not been an issue on which the will writer who drafted Mrs L’s will had taken her specific instructions but the limitation appeared in her will because it was part of their standard precedent.
- 2. Mrs L had not read over the will as she had trusted the will writer to have understood her instructions. She therefore had not appreciated the consequences of the clause that cut down Mr L’s interest.
- 3. The will was rectified to remove the restriction to Mr L’s occupation of the property.
JUDGMENT HHJ BARKER QC: [1] By this action, Mr Christopher Lines seeks the rectification of clause 9(1) of the will of his late wife Audrey Lines who died on 9 December 2004 after a short illness. Mr Christopher Lines is the executor of Audrey Lines’ will, which was admitted to probate on 7 July 2009. …
Continue reading "Lines v Porter & ors [2011] EWHC 2310 (Ch)"