Revoking a Will - the consequences for a previous Will.

[Pezza54]

Then the executor is caught between a rock and a hard place

Apply to remove the caveat and risk personal liability for costs, or fail to make the application and risk being sued by the beneficiaries for not carrying out executor duties competently

In this case if the executor was to consult the beneficiaries about funding legal costs from the estate, they would surely say yes, they have nothing to lose.
If the family win the case they would receive all of the estate under intestacy rules (what is left after legal costs deducted) and the beneficiaries in the original will get nothing.

[Dev'sAd]

That is categorically what the law says.

We have already agreed that this is what the letter of the law - the Act - says.

What I'm asking about how this is interpreted in practice, especially modern-day, as we know from countless examples that it can be quite different. Modern law examines evidence for what the actual intent was, and this often overrides what the 'letter-of-the-law' may have prescribed.

So I still don't know your take on the scenario I outlined before? Or, more to the point, the actual situation here;

Two Wills. The first one 100% valid. A second Will written, and - let's assume for the sake of this discussion - was also valid, but was quickly and intentionally destroyed by the author, with a written explanation of the intent; that was to revoke the second Will, and to retain the previous Will (which had never been directly revoked by the author, except by the standard revocation term in the second Will).

Your thoughts, please?

[Dev'sAd]

Isn't it up to the estranged family to prove that the second will was valid, revoking the first will?

IMO your executor friend should strongly defend the family's claim on the grounds the second will was never valid

It wouldn't serve the family, as neither Will held them as beneficiaries! :-)

[Pezza54]

It wouldn't serve the family, as neither Will held them as beneficiaries! :-)

Sorry I don't know what you mean
Isn't the executor serving the deceased by ensuring that the beneficiaries receive their inheritance as per the will?

[atticus]

As to post 32, the law as stated in the Wills Act could not be clearer. That is how it will be interpreted in practice: there is no ambiguity that I can see.

Let's look at your restated scenario. Was the revoked will re-executed? No. Then it remains revoked, it is not valid, it has ceased to be.

Posts 33 and 34: you and Pezza seem to be saying the same thing but misunderstanding each other.

[Dev'sAd]

Sorry I don't know what you mean
Isn't the executor serving the deceased by ensuring that the beneficiaries receive their inheritance as per the will?

Yes.

What I'm saying is that neither Will had the family as beneficiaries. Only a successful claim of intestacy would serve them well - and would be contrary to the deceased's clear wishes and intent.

[Dev'sAd]

As to post 32, the law as stated in the Wills Act could not be clearer. That is how it will be interpreted in practice: there is no ambiguity that I can see.

Let's look at your restated scenario. Was the revoked will re-executed? No. Then it remains revoked, it is not valid, it has ceased to be.

Posts 33 and 34: you and Pezza seem to be saying the same thing but misunderstanding each other.

I get that, but...

A recent - fascinating - case had a daughter gleefully excluded from her dad's Will - he boasted about how happy it made him to do this. He maintained his daughter was a pathetic waste of time, and a disappointment to him. On his passing, she sued his estate - and had a partial victory. Justification? That the cause of her low self-esteem was her horrible dad's attitude to her - the judge ruled she should be given a sum in order to compensate (a boob job...). That is a bizarre case, and quite extreme. Astonishing, even - the result was directly contrary to his wishes.

There are countless disputes over Wills, many including claims of intestacy and covering destroyed and lost Wills. Those that go as far as court are judged on what the testator intended, and how solid the evidence is for this. Are you saying 'non' - the law will act on the letter?

'Contentious probate' solicitors that have been contacted are split roughly 50:50 on this issue, one side simply citing the 'law', and others the most likely outcome if challenged.

[atticus]

Please identify that case. I do not believe that you have accurately quoted the reasons for the judge's decision. It may have been a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. News media tend not to be reliable sources for discussion of the legal principles in this type of case.

In any event, from what you say it has no relevance to the question under discussion.



EDIT - I have found the case (I used AI tools). It was indeed an Inheritance Act case. These cases concern the adequacy of financial provision made for someone who was wholly or partially maintained by the deceased. Breast implants make better headlines than the actual legal principles.

[Pezza54]

I've just read about a case where an old lady who was very ill in hospital and little time left, had curtains around her bed, but her hearing was sharp enough to hear relatives talking about putting her in a care home if she recovered.
She immediately called her solicitor to the hospital and changed her will
When she died the relatives challenged the new will
The court decided the new will was valid and the family ended up paying legal costs

[atticus]

That would seem right, but again, when discussing law please identify the case.

And again, it's not on point.

[Dev'sAd]

Please identify that case. I do not believe that you have accurately quoted the reasons for the judge's decision. It may have been a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. News media tend not to be reliable sources for discussion of the legal principles in this type of case.

In any event, from what you say it has no relevance to the question under discussion.

EDIT - I have found the case (I used AI tools). It was indeed an Inheritance Act case. These cases concern the adequacy of financial provision made for someone who was wholly or partially maintained by the deceased. Breast implants make better headlines than the actual legal principles.

I cited that case only as an easy and seemingly extreme example of what can be challenged in reality. If she only received £35k out of her dad's wealthy estate, it hardly provides for her 'provision'. As you say, tho', it has zero relevance to this case.

In this case, 'contentious probate' solicitors are roughly divided 50:50, but Which Wills and the Probate Office are clear that evidence of the latter Will being intentionally destroyed means revocation of that Will, but that the earlier remaining Will becomes the controlling document. It is a grey area. Each case will be examined individually. But it isn't as set in stone as you claim. There are a number of factors in this case that support the 'controlling document' outcome, including (but not limited to) the short life of the new Will, and the clear, written, intent.

You surely do know that it isn't black and white. For instance, the requirements for the attestation clause are seemingly very clear - eg both witnesses must observe the author sign their section, and they should know what the document is, but - in reality - there is flexibility on this, if it is deemed evidential enough. As in this case. A judge or adjudicator will act on the evidence, not the letter.

You think differently?

[atticus]

You have asked what the law is. I have given you a very clear answer to that question.

As to the specific case, I have not seen all the details. I expect that the various lawyers who have been consulted have seen more. Should this case go to court, a judge will assess the evidence, make findings of fact, and apply the law to the facts as he/she has found them to be.

Nor have you explained why this is so important to you.

[Dev'sAd]

You have asked what the law is. I have given you a very clear answer to that question.

As to the specific case, I have not seen all the details. I expect that the various lawyers who have been consulted have seen more. Should this case go to court, a judge will assess the evidence, make findings of fact, and apply the law to the facts as he/she has found them to be.

Nor have you explained why this is so important to you.

I explained to another poster my role; I'm a friend of the executor of the earlier Will, and trying to do the right thing. I have nothing at all to personally gain, other than a good feeling from the correct moral outcome. The 'correct' moral outcome is to avoid intestacy - the last thing the testator would have wanted.

Thanks for the above. Yes, I have to agree that the law is specific regarding what is required to re-execute a revoked Will. I'm not very good at deciphering law-speak, but I haven't found anything in the 'written' law, or any subsequent interpretation, that covers a case like this where a remaining 'valid' Will (ie, not individually revoked by the author) is available. The testator here intentionally revoked the later Will, left a written account of their intent, and never did do a similar action against the previous Will.

If the second Will was valid, then it was the only document or action that revoked the previous Will due to the standard 'revocation clause'. But the testator left clear intent of what they were doing - changing their mind, and reverting to the previous Will. When a perfectly valid interpretation of what the Law prescribes includes, "It is important to note that revoking a Will effectively nullifies any instructions or provisions previously outlined in the document.", then why doesn't that nullification also include the included revocation clause?

The statement in inverted commas is a technically valid interpretation to make, isn't it? If so, why are some interprets more valid than others?

More to the point, is there - in written Will Law - any reference to the situation here - ie there remains an existing 'valid' Will?

Thanks.

[atticus]

I disagree. Revocation is permanent, in my view, as stated in my first post in your previous thread. See s22 Wills Act 1837 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga.../26/section/22

See what I have previously said. There is nothing more to be said, no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise.

[Dev'sAd]

See what I have previously said. There is nothing more to be said, no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise.

"No will revoked to be revived otherwise than by Re-execution or a Codicil to revive it.

No will or codicil, or any part thereof, which shall be in any manner revoked, shall be revived otherwise than by the re-execution thereof or by a codicil executed in manner herein-before required and showing an intention to revive the same; and when any will or codicil which shall be partly revoked, and afterwards wholly revoked, shall be revived, such revival shall not extend to so much thereof as shall have been revoked before the revocation of the whole thereof, unless an intention to the contrary shall be shown."

That section is unambiguous, as it stands. I think we all understand what it says - if you revoke a Will, it has to be 'unrevoked' by these methods. It refers to what happens to a 'Will'.

Is there another paragraph in the Act that describes what a 'revocation' actually implies? Ie, is there a description anywhere close to AstonBond's, "It is important to note that revoking a Will effectively nullifies any instructions or provisions previously outlined in the document." ?

Thanks.