Thoughts on this testator scenario, please?

[Dev'sAd]

There is a simple example of an attestation clause for a will in the article "What is an Attestation Clause in a Will? Explained in Plain English" at www.willstrustslpa.co.uk

Hi. Could you direct me to that, please? I cannae find it :-)

Oops, sorry, found it: https://willstrustslpa.co.uk/service...plain-english/

[Dev'sAd]

Again, thank you everyone.

I have to say, I didn't expect the focus to be on the validity of the witnessing procedure - but any port in a storm :-).

Could anyone comment on the other point? The second Will was completely and very purposefully destroyed by the testator, described as such in their own diary entries, and their intention by this action - to revert to the previous Will - also made clear in their diary.

There are ways to 'revoke' a Will, and destroying them is one - provided it is evident what their intention was. A Q - does that always make them intestate, or could a previous Will become the controlling document, if it is evidenced that this was their intention?

Cheers.

[Dev'sAd]

Edited.

[Pezza54]

You threw the cat amongst the pigeons in your first post when you stated both the witnesses could not be sure it was a will they signed.
I find it difficult to believe potential beneficiaries who believe they are losing out in the first will but may be gaining under the rules of intestacy would risk their own money challenging the original will on the grounds that the will was revoked by a second will that doesn't exist anymore and the witnesses can't be sure it was a will they signed (relying on deceased's diary notes as evidence)

[PallasAthena]

I suspect that discussion about whether the witnesses knew it was a will or whether they complied with signing rules, whilst interesting, may be of limited relevance given the second Will has been completely destroyed and no-one knows what it said.

[atticus]

I agree. It is easy to get sidetracked.

[Dev'sAd]

I suspect that discussion about whether the witnesses knew it was a will or whether they complied with signing rules, whilst interesting, may be of limited relevance given the second Will has been completely destroyed and no-one knows what it said.

Could you clarify what you mean, please? Would there not be quite different outcomes depending on whether it was witnessed correctly or not? Surely it does matter - it would determine whether it was ever 'valid'? If not valid, then the earlier Will would not have been revoked, so still stands?

The second Will has been completely destroyed, yes, and only the deceased author would have had sight of the completed document. However, a draft of it does exist, having been prepared by a Will-writing service, and it's as equally non-beneficial as the original Will to those who would stand to gain through intestacy.

[Pezza54]

IMO the original will still stands.
It was not destroyed by the testator, nor did the testator write to the solicitor holding the original will stating that it had been revoked by a new will

Although there is an unsigned draft of the second will available it is invalid as it is unsigned by the testator or witnesses. The testator destroyed the signed original (either they told someone they had destroyed it or somebody watched him destroy it) and/or the testator's diary notes confirm it was their intention to destroy the second will and revert to the original one

Add to that the witnesses are unable to confirm it was a will they signed. If there was an attestation clause above their signatures, it seems unlikely they can't remember signing the will

[Dev'sAd]

IMO the original will still stands.
It was not destroyed by the testator, nor did the testator write to the solicitor holding the original will stating that it had been revoked by a new will

Although there is an unsigned draft of the second will available it is invalid as it is unsigned by the testator or witnesses. The testator destroyed the signed original (either they told someone they had destroyed it or somebody watched him destroy it) and/or the testator's diary notes confirm it was their intention to destroy the second will and revert to the original one

Add to that the witnesses are unable to confirm it was a will they signed. If there was an attestation clause above their signatures, it seems unlikely they can't remember signing the will

I hope so, Pezza, as it would be the correct moral outcome.

(Just to add - I am not a beneficiary, as I only knew the testator casually, but it is unambiguous as to what their true wishes were, and who the deserving beneficiaries are.)

I have started another thread on a what I hope is an interesting point. :-)

Thanks.