In a previous Insight we outlined the case of Carry Keats’ estate and whether a partial but not complete tearing of the will document could be enough to revoke the will by destructions.
We addressed the need for clarity here and Carry Keats exemplified the importance of knowing whether an intention has been translated into a lawful action. If you wish to revoke your will, you must know with certainty what will and what will not take legal effect.
We now have the judgment of the Court confirming that the will was indeed revoked by destruction.
The ruling
The ruling of this case provided clarity as to two central matters:
1. The validity of destruction
The first issue addressed by the judge was whether Mrs Keats’ tearing of the will was valid. It was clarified that Mrs Keats tore three quarters of the will document and her solicitor, who was present at the moment she did this, assisted in tearing the final quarter. Regardless of the solicitor’s assistance here, the partial tear would have been sufficient. Mrs Keats believed the partial tear was enough to revoke the will and this was satisfactory for destruction, as far as the court was concerned.
The judge questioned the solicitor’s role and whether this was mere acquiescence. However, the positive form of communication, through Mrs Keats nodding at the assistance provided, amounted to authorisation of destruction.
It was overall confirmed that the tearing of the will was sufficient to destroy the will’s validity and Mrs Keats had the necessary intention to support this.
2. The question of capacity to revoke
The judge went on to remind the court of the fact that testamentary capacity is presumed. Mrs Keats was found to have weighed the interests of potential beneficiaries. She understood the repercussions of dying intestate and she could understand and recollect the extent of her property, each of which led the judge to favour the presumption remaining.
Mrs Keats’ solicitor was crucial in this finding. The judge gave weight to her evidence as she was present at the time of the act, was an impartial party, and had many years dealing with probate and will drafting.
The overall finding was that Mrs Keats validly destroyed her will and she had capacity when she did this. Therefore, she died intestate and her £800,000 estate passed to her sister rather than the cousins.
Comments
This case is a useful reminder that a party’s intention is a forefront consideration when deciding on the validity of a will or its revocation. Whilst intention alone will never be enough to revoke a will, when this is accompanied by an act resembling revocation, the court will uphold that intention.
The judge’s final comment must be highlighted – the judge urged future parties to realistically and effectively engage in practices like negotiation to resolve disputes akin to this case, reminding us that it is human nature to dispute these matters. This was a helpful reminder of the court’s encouragement to pursue alternatives to in-court dispute resolution and attempt to avoid the arduous court process.
How we can help
Our expertise in dispute resolution enables us to deliver high-quality and efficient advice that overcomes the various legal obstacles that can arise when questioning the validity of a will.
Given the court’s focus on alternative methods of resolving a dispute, we can examine the facts of your issue and take an individualised approach to advise on the best methods to resolve your dispute.
Contact us today
Please call us to see how we can assist you if you are concerned about the validity of a will and need assistance in navigating the law.
