Chat icon
Support
Chat icon
Chat Widget
Chat icon
Join as a Consumer
Join as a Lawyer
Lawyer 365
Lawyer 365 - See a lawyer by video
Try the app
Error
Posts
Reina
Bizlaw U.K.
3 days ago
A bit about Bizlaw U.K. - Prevention is better than Cure!
Photo 1334419484 2021 09 20 17 47 37 Videoplay2
Comments Comment
0 Like
1 Comments
Reina
Bizlaw U.K.
3 days ago
At business event
Photo 0 2021 09 20 17 45 06
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Reina
Bizlaw U.K.
3 days ago
Award
Photo 0 2021 09 20 17 44 12
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Reina
Bizlaw U.K.
3 days ago
Testimonial
Photo 0 2021 09 20 17 43 31
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Open uri20210706 26988 1lanxl0?1625578159
Amnesty Solicitors
20 days ago
Amnesty Solicitors Specialist immigration solicitors with over 18 years experience in all aspects of UK immigration, appeals and judicial reviews. Our office is based in the heart of the City of London, however we represent clients both nationally and internationally.
Img 20210903 095230442
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
1 month ago
There a various ways in which the validity of a will can be challenged. Perhaps the most common argument is that the Deceased person lacked the relevant capacity at the time of providing instructions for and later executing their last will. But was exactly is testamentary capacity and what is the test for establishing whether or not someone did or did not have capacity? In my article below, I deal with this issue in detail: What is Testamentary Capacity? 23rd January 2020 As average life expectancy increases and the population becomes older, there is an increased risk that the health problems associated with ageing will mean that many of those who seek to execute a Will later in life do not have adequate testamentary capacity to do so. If a court determines that an individual lacked testamentary capacity at the time their Will was drafted and executed, their Will shall be found to be invalid. This blog will explore how testamentary capacity is established and how a Will may be challenged on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity. Testamentary capacity is a legal term that is used to describe a person’s cognitive ability to execute a valid Will. The case of Banks v Goodfellow [1870] sets out the test for testamentary capacity in order to execute a valid Will, and is as follows: A testator must: a) Understand the nature of making a Will and its effects, b) Understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing, c) Be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect, d) Have no disorder of the mind that perverts his sense of right or prevents the exercise of his natural faculties in disposing of his property by Will. Where there are concerns with regards to an individual’s testamentary capacity and the testator has consulted a legal professional to draft their Will, the legal professional is under a duty to consider as part of their instructions whether they consider that the testator has adequate testamentary capacity in accordance with the test set out above so as to enable them to execute a Will. If there are any concerns regarding capacity it would be appropriate for a legal professional to take steps to obtain evidence from a medical professional that attests to the testator’s mental capacity which can be presented as evidence to the court that the individual was capable of making their Will. Whilst this is a potential safeguard that can be put in place where a solicitor drafts a Will, difficulties can arise where a testator drafts their own Will without the assistance of a legal professional. Where this occurs, there is usually no evidence to demonstrate that a testator has capacity nor that any assessment of the testator’s testamentary capacity has taken place and it would be unusual for there to be any notes considering the capacity of the testator. Under these circumstances, concerns over testamentary capacity are more likely to arise, leaving a Will vulnerable to a potential challenge on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity. When considering a challenge to a Will on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity, it is important to note that there is a presumption of capacity and it is for the challenger provide evidence to the contrary. Once the court is satisfied that there are questions to answer in respect of capacity the burden of proving capacity will fall on the personal representatives of the testator. With this in mind, it can be difficult to collect evidence to prove that the testator had lacked testamentary capacity at the time their Will was drafted or executed. Medical or witness evidence can be crucial in determining whether an individual had testamentary capacity at the time of executing their Will, and, where a legal professional is instructed, their contemporaneous notes of their attendance will also offer assistance. If you have concerns that an individual may not have had adequate testamentary capacity when executing their Will or you are the Executor of a Will that is facing a challenge on the basis that the testator lacked testamentary capacity, you should obtain specialist advice and assistance. Challenges as to testamentary capacity can be complex and it is therefore important to seek expert legal advice before deciding whether to proceed with, or defend, a challenge to a Will.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
1 month ago
Where you believe that you or your children have been left out of a loved one's will or have not been reasonably provided for, it is possible to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision. In a recent blog, my colleague, Ian Johnston, examines a recent example of where the court is willing to make awards for minor children despite being estranged from a parent. Minor children awarded provision under the Inheritance Act, despite estrangement 18th May 2021 The High Court, on 16th April 2021, handed down judgment in the case of Re R (Deceased) 2021 EWHC 936 Ch. This is an interesting decision concerning a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘the Act’), made by a mother, on behalf of her two teenage children. Background to this case: Facts In this case, the Deceased (‘R’) passed away, aged 41, due to a severe lung problem. R was married to N, but they had divorced in 2012. R and N had two children together, J and H, the teenage claimants in this case. R then had a new relationship with S, the first defendant in this case, up until his death. S was also acting as the sole executor of the estate in question. Following the divorce, R paid for child maintenance in relation to J and H. He missed a payment on one occasion due to being in hospital, and when he made efforts to restore payments, he found that the account he was paying into was shut. Following this, in 2013, there was an application made by N against R, claiming for child maintenance payments. However, R was then informed that the application was no longer being pursued. J and H then moved away with N. Initially, R would speak to his children every week, but contact ceased altogether at some point in 2014. The Deceased’s original will was made in 2013. In this will, he appointed his parents, M and L (the second defendants,) as executors, along with the partners at the solicitors firm where he made the will. R gave his shares in his businesses to his parents and the residue of his estate was to be left to J and H. The Deceased subsequently changed his will in 2018. He left shares in both his companies to his parents, (M and L,) and his partner, S. M, L and S were all defendants in this case. In the 2018 will, R made no provision for his teenage children, J and H. When making the 2018 will, R made a statement recording the reasons why he did not wish his children to benefit from his estate. His main reasons were that the children had moved away with N and her new partner to start a new life in Scotland. He also referred to N no longer pursuing him for child maintenance and the fact that he had not been able to get in contact with J and H for three years. He said it was therefore made clear that N did not want him to be a part of his children’s life and therefore he did not believe that J and H would require any financial provision upon his death. The Claim N brought a claim on behalf of her teenage children, J and H, under the Act for reasonable financial provision. J and H were the claimants in this case, but as they were minors when the claim was brought, their mother brought the claim on their behalf as their litigation friend. The case was put forward that the maintenance needs of her children following R’s death, should be met from R’s estate. Court’s decision In an interesting decision, the judge found that J and H were entitled to reasonable financial provision for their maintenance, from R’s estate. Despite the fact that J and H were no longer in contact with their father, and N had decided not to pursue him for child maintenance payments, the judge still found in favour of J and H. Furthermore, the judge was not convinced by the argument put forward by the defendants that the claimants should not receive anything from the estate because J and H were now being maintained by N and her new partner. However, the judge limited the sum that J and H were to receive to £186,000 from the £814,000 estate. Despite the fact that J and H were entitled to financial provision from R’s estate the judge, in making his decision, felt that it wouldn’t seem right that the entire maintenance obligation and responsibility towards J and H, should be shifted to the Deceased in the consequence of his death, when child maintenance was not sought when he was alive. Significance This judgment is significant in showing the approach that the courts take when assessing claims by teenage children under the Act. The judge in this case highlighted that it was inappropriate for the defendants to try and rely on the fact that the Deceased failed to provide child support, even if not called upon to do so. The inherent father-child relationship was a key consideration here, with an assumed position of responsibility, even if maintenance was not sought in the later years of his life. Even if J and H were not supported by their father in the later years, the obligations arose out of the fact that he was their father and they were minors at the time of his death. The judge considered that neither J nor H could be held responsible for the unhappy consequences of their parents’ divorce and therefore they were entitled to financial provision from R’s estate. The judge also appeared to draw a distinction between teenage children applicants and adult children applicants and it appears the court will be more generous when considering the claim of minor children.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Samara
Aramas Law
1 month ago
Child Abduction There are still, sadly, too many child abductions away from the primary residential parent, especially to non-Hague convention countries.­ Genuine child abduction is still a major problem.­ Many countries are not doing enough or anything to secure the return of abducted children.­ Sometimes the child goes missing altogether or for many years.­ Sometimes the courts of the country to which the child has been abducted will not assist in any return and perhaps even transfer custody to the other parent, the national, often the father.­ Some parents have had to take drastic and dramatic steps to recover their children, even after many years apart.­ Child abduction proceedings in England for the return of a child abducted here are always in the High Court, dealt with by very experienced, specialist judges and with the parent whose child has been abducted being legally represented by highly specialist and effective lawyers.­ What is the Hague Convention?­ It is a worldwide agreement entered into by about 80 countries with the intention to secure the fast return of abducted children to the country from which they have been abducted.­ Governments, police and courts work together very closely, including between countries.­ Their concern is the early return of the child.­ What happens if our child has been abducted to a country which is not a signatory to the Hague convention? There are unfortunately still many countries which are not signatories to the Hague Convention.­ Some non-signatory countries actively cooperate as if they are signatories.­ Some have entered into bilateral arrangements with England similar to the Hague Convention such as Pakistan and Egypt.­ However a number of countries do not co-operate fully to secure the return of an abducted child.­ Very good, experienced and specialist legal advice and representation is needed and must be sought quickly.­ English specialist lawyers often work closely with lawyers in the country to which the child has been taken.­ Proceedings in England such as wardship can sometimes assist to encourage the courts of the other country to order a return from abroad.­ Other steps can be taken e.g. seizing assets belonging to the abducting parent.­ The English courts’ obligation is to secure the immediate return of the child. English courts will be more prepared to consider long-term issues, i.e. who is the best parent to look after the child and care for the child and in which country.­ It is often beneficial when we work with a specialist lawyer in the other country to ascertain what would happen if the child were to be returned. The Court can make very powerful orders when a child is missing.­ It is of paramount importance that the child is located quickly.­ This includes:­ orders against telephone companies to locate the address a telephone is used by an alleged abductor or the area from which mobile calls are made. orders against banks to freeze accounts. orders against friends and relatives to attend court to disclose whereabouts of parent and child. orders against internet companies to disclose the confidential IP address that would detail in which country an abductor is living and/or e-mail traffic. orders against lawyers to disclose whereabouts and to produce files for inspection by the court; this is a rare example of the courts having the power to overcome lawyer client confidentiality. orders to search a home and seize personal possessions that may give clues as to where the alleged abductor is living. orders against travel agencies to disclose all travel records that they have on file. orders against health authorities and medical practitioners to disclose any treatment given. orders against local authorities and welfare benefit offices. The above orders are only an example.­ This list is not exhaustive.­ Courts view the abduction of children and failure to disclose whereabouts very seriously indeed and use all available powers.­ Threats by one parent to abduct a child should always be treated seriously.­ A number of steps can be taken to minimise the risk and we are happy to discuss these with you: Make sure you or someone known to the child always collects from school and other hand over arrangements with the other parent are strictly adhered to. Have to hand and in advance detailed description and information, up to date and digital photographs and documents (e.g. birth certificate, copy passport) concerning the child to help trace the child; a lawyer can recommend a list. Keep the child’s passport in a safe place. Obtain a long-term prohibited steps court order to prevent the child being taken out of England or Wales or away from the care of the primary “residential” parent. Obtain the other parent’s passport during contact visits. Obtain the fingerprinting form provided by Reunite. Obtain a ports alert order if the risk of abduction is imminent i.e. under way, to warn airports etc. Tell the school and others about your anxiety of an abduction so they are on alert. If the child is old enough and mature enough, and with considerable care, tell the child to be very cautious and ask for help if taken away by the other parent.­ Ensure the child (and school) knows who, and who will not, be collecting the child from school or other activities.­ Please contact us for a free initial consultation by visiting my profile listing on Lawyer 365 and either clicking Consult Now or Book Now.
1em6zzfdonnr1hxpwosffj9l0uofi4child abduction
Comments Comment
1 Like
1 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
1 month ago
Contentious Probate is a niche area in which only a small number of lawyers have expertise. Claims made under the Inheritance (Provision) for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 or challenges as to the validity of a Deceased's persons will are complex and require specialist input. In his recent blog, my colleague Max Murphy examines the case of Rea v Rea which stands as a good example of why expert lawyers are needed for tricky and complex claims. Rea v Rea: Why complex claims require expert input 16th February 2021 In this case, a claim was brought by Rita Rea (“Rita”) who was the daughter of the Deceased, Anna Rea (“the Deceased”). Rita sought to propound the last Will and Testament of the Deceased dated the 7 December 2015 (“the 2015 Will”). The 2015 Will left some pecuniary legacies to the Deceased’s 3 sons; however, the main asset of the estate was a property worth nearly £1m which was left to Rita only. The Deceased’s sons all alleged that the 2015 was invalid and the previous Will, which was made in 1986 (the “1986 Will”), should be entered into probate instead. Under the 1986 Will everything was to be split equally between the 4 children. The 3 sons, acting as litigants in person, sought to challenge the 2015 Will on various grounds, one of which was Fraudulent Calumny, a type of Undue Influence. Fraudulent Calumny is often explained as someone poisoning the mind of a testator against a particular person, and relying on that the testator then freely excludes them from their Will. Fraudulent calumny and undue influence are difficult to prove and rarely made out, and having cogent evidence is essential, as is the need to set the evidence out clearly and in a logical fashion. At trial, the 3 sons offered no evidence to substantiate their claim that Rita had poisoned the mind of the Deceased by casting dishonest aspersions on their personality. Consequently, Deputy Master Arkush made no finding of Fraudulent Calumny. Furthermore, where the 3 sons alleged Undue Influence on Rita’s part, their evidence in support of this was Rita’s vindictive, angry and violent character. Attacking the character of an individual is not sufficient to successfully make out a Fraudulent Calumny claim and the judge stated that “the Defendants either set out to blacken Rita’s character to the court as a deliberate and dishonest aim or they have persuaded themselves that she is as bad a person as they described her”. It comes as no surprise that the 2015 Will was admitted to probate and the 3 sons were left empty handed and what was probably a sizeable bill for costs. This case highlights the need for early intervention from experienced lawyers. The legal principles in this area are not straightforward and gathering the appropriate evidence is vital when running complex arguments which seek to challenge a Will. In this instance, it may well have been more cost effective for the 3 sons to have engaged lawyers from the beginning. A lawyer would have been able to assess the prospects of success of each claim in turn and could have advised the 3 sons as to which claims were not worth pursuing and those which were, thereby saving considerable time and expense. Similarly, lawyers are well versed in not only gathering relevant evidence but also in presenting that evidence to the court. It is understood that the brothers have lodged an appeal against the High Court’s decision of October 2019, with one of the grounds for appeal being the apparent failure of the Judge to adjourn the proceedings so that the 3 of them could seek legal representation. The outcome of this appeal is not yet known, but if successful, it would highlight the importance having legal representation.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
1 month ago
Harry Potter Publisher leaves an unexpected Will that may be challenged – perhaps inspired by the Chamber of Secrets! 4th August 2021 Recent reports in America have highlighted the increasingly common situation where people leave their entire estate to non-family members upon their death, much to the upset of their family. Richard Robinson Junior (“the Deceased”) was the owner of Scholastic publishing company, best known for publishing ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Clifford the Big Red Dog,’ to name a few. He passed away suddenly in June 2021 and has left, amongst other things, his entire company, worth $1.2 billion, to his lover (who also held a significant role in the company) to the exclusion of his ex-wife and sons. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Deceased’s two sons and his ex-wife are not happy that the entire estate has been left to his former lover, with whom they had never spoken until after the Deceased’s death. The Deceased’s sons are currently considering their legal options and, while any action would take place outside of our jurisdiction, the facts are certainly similar to many scenarios that we come across under the law of England and Wales. Under English law, the principle of testamentary freedom is key when a person is making a will and considering who to leave their estate to upon their death. In theory and subject to certain exceptions, you can therefore leave your estate to whoever you wish, including non-family members, charities, etc. However, as you would expect, this can leave many disinherited family members disgruntled and some may be in a position to challenge a will. Under English law, certain categories of people can make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the Act”) if it is considered that a will has not made reasonable financial provision for them. Children of the deceased can make a claim under the act, such as Mr Robinson Junior’s sons, as well as for example spouses and former spouses (who have not formed a subsequent marriage.) The court considers several factors when exercising its discretion to consider such claims and the focus is often whether any applicant is in need of financial provision for their maintenance. For example, in a case with facts like that of Richard Robinson Junior and with an estate value of the likely level here, one of the factors that the court would look at if the dispute were in England or Wales is whether the Deceased had maintained his children financially during their lifetime and also their individual financial circumstances. Furthermore, they will also consider the large size of the estate and the fact that the Deceased had become closer to his children and ex-wife again prior to his death and after his Will was executed. These factors would be considered on a case by case basis to determine whether any award should be made in favour of those excluded from a Will. A scenario like this highlights the importance of individuals discussing their wishes with family members before they die so that they are aware of the provisions and the reasons why such decisions have been taken. This would prevent a secret will being discovered after death which may be surprising and upsetting to family members and may result in expensive and uncertain litigation.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Open uri20210602 24919 nmhw7r?1622661395
David Wylde
1 month ago
Listen
Photo 3489119181 2021 08 03 22 35 57 Videoplay2
Comments Comment
1 Like
1 Comments
Open uri20210602 24919 nmhw7r?1622661395
David Wylde
1 month ago
Court date
Photo 0 2021 08 03 22 34 39
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Open uri20210602 24919 nmhw7r?1622661395
David Wylde
1 month ago
At IAC Hatton Cross today on an appeal hearing
Photo 0 2021 08 03 22 33 53
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
2 months ago
I am often instructed in matters where the validity of a Deceased person's will is challenged. One of the more common grounds for disputing the validity of a will, is that the person lacked the capacity at the time of preparing and executing their last will. I have recently co-authored a blog on the very recent case of Hughes v Pritchard where capacity was an issue. The court's decision was an usual one, the significance of which is discussed below. Hughes v Pritchard: How far do you need to go to establish capacity? 12th July 2021 If it is considered that a deceased person lacked testamentary capacity when making a will, and the validity of the will is therefore brought into question, then a person may bring a challenge to try and overturn the will. In an interesting and arguably unusual decision, judgment was handed down in the case of Hughes v Pritchard (2021 EWHC 1580 Ch) on 11 June 2021. Despite the solicitor who drafted the will following the ‘Golden Rule,’ and there being a GP and expert report concluding that the Deceased had capacity at the time they executed their Will, the Judge still ruled that the Deceased lacked capacity at the time. The Golden Rule When drafting a will for a client, it is always important for solicitors to ensure that their client has testamentary capacity, as set out in the test in the well-established case of Banks v Goodfellow, to ensure the will is valid. This is particularly important where the client is elderly, vulnerable or seriously ill, where the possibility of capacity issues are more likely to arise. The law provides further guidance in relation to this, with the ‘Golden Rule’ of will making, as provided for in the case of Re Simpson [1977] 121 SJ 224. This rule provides that in the case of an elderly or seriously ill person who wishes to make a new will, the solicitor should seek the opinion of a medical expert regarding the person’s capacity to make a new will. This was of importance in the case of Hughes v Pritchard. Background This case concerned the estate of Evan Richard Hughes (“the Deceased”) who died in March 2017, and the source of the dispute was his last will dated 7 July 2016 (“the 2016 Will.”) The Deceased had three children, Gareth, Cerys and Elfed. Elfed unfortunately predeceased his father, in tragic circumstances. In his previous will, (“the 2005 Will”) the Deceased left his shares in a family business to Gareth and Cerys and left all of his farm land to Elfed. Throughout his life, Elfed had always been told that he was being left the farm land, and in reliance of this promise, he worked very long hours on the farm, as well as working for the family company. For many years, the Deceased had made all of his children aware of what would happen with his estate upon his death. Shortly after the death of Elfed, the Deceased changed his will and created the 2016 Will. At this time, the Deceased was said to be suffering from moderate to severe dementia. The main change made in the 2016 Will was that his son Gareth would now inherit the majority of the farmland, with the residue being left to Elfed’s widow, Gwen. The solicitor dealing with the 2016 Will arranged for a capacity assessment to be carried out in relation to the Deceased, before the new will was to be executed. This was in accordance with the Golden Rule. The doctor providing the assessment was provided with a copy of the proposed 2016 Will and the existing 2005 Will. Following a meeting with the Deceased, the doctor confirmed that he had no concerns as to the capacity of the Deceased to change his will, and that he would be happy to act as a witness. Claim Following the Deceased’s death, Gareth, who had benefitted from the change, sought to propound the validity of the 2016 Will. However, the Defendants (the Deceased’s daughter and Elfed’s widow and son,) brought a counter-claim, arguing that the 2016 Will was not valid as the Deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time it was made, by reason of his dementia. Decision Despite there being both a GP report and expert report confirming that the Deceased was considered to have testamentary capacity when making the 2016 Will, the Judge held that the deceased in fact lacked testamentary capacity when making the 2016 Will, and therefore the previous 2005 Will was to be taken as his last Will. Further, despite the solicitor who drafted the 2016 Will having followed the Golden rule, as well as there being a GP report and expert report, the Judge held that applying the Banks v Goodfellow test for testamentary capacity, the Deceased did not have the relevant capacity to appreciate the understanding that he had with his son Elfed over the years in connection with the farmland, and his subsequent reliance on this. The Judge also concluded that he lacked the capacity to be able to fully understand the extent of the farmland, and to further understand that the changes in the 2016 Will were more than just minor changes to the 2005 Will. In addition to this, the Judge also relied on the fact that in giving evidence, the GP subsequently placed doubt on the reliability of his own account when providing the capacity assessment, as he too had not been made aware of the extent of the changes which the 2016 Will would encompass when compared with the 2005 Will. He initially believed that the Deceased was only making small changes to the original 2005 Will and that distinction may have changed his view on capacity at the time. Significance This case serves as an important reminder in the case of validity challenges, that capacity reports remain persuasive evidence, but are not determinative. Even in the presence of seemingly convincing evidence from a GP and an expert that the Deceased had capacity, this was still not enough to prove capacity in this case. Just because you have a capacity report does not necessarily mean that there can be no successful challenge to the validity of the will. This arguably adds to the inherent uncertainty and costs risk associated with going to court in such cases. The case also highlights the importance of providing complete and comprehensive instructions to a healthcare professional when obtaining a capacity report. For example, there should be clear details provided as to the extent of the changes to any will, as this could impact their assessment of capacity as the extent to which changes are made could be significant. In this case, it wasn’t just a minor change to the will, but instead a major asset (ie the farmland) was being redirected and was worth almost £490,000. As a final point, on the facts of this case, even if the 2016 Will was held to be valid, there would still would have been a proprietary estoppel claim, which Elfed’s widow could bring on his behalf.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
2 months ago
I often get asked what the difference is between mutual and mirror wills. My article below explains exactly what they are and the advantages and disadvantages of both. Mutual Wills and Mirror Wills 10th January 2020 Mirror wills and mutual wills offer a combined approach to the distribution of shared assets between those in a relationship. These wills can assist with the distribution of the estate in accordance with the wishes of both parties, but can also impose restrictions that can affect the future wishes of either party. Therefore it is important that any joint approach to drafting wills is careful considered to ensure that both parties fully understand their respective wills and how they will operate to provide for their loved ones. If this is not the case, it is more likely that disputes may arise. JMW have been involved in a number of cases where disputes arise after someone has died as a result of a failure to consider the correct approach at the time of will drafting. Mirror Wills Mirror wills, as the name suggests, largely reflect the terms of a spouse’s or partner’s will. They are usually drafted to distribute the estate to the surviving partner upon the death of the first partner, and make provision for any children by directing that the surviving partner passes assets on to the children upon their death. However, wills in these specific terms are becoming less common as families become more complex, with people making wills with their partner perhaps having children from previous relationships who they may wish to provide for in their will. In cases such as these it is not always practical to have wills with identical terms, as this may mean that parties are excluded. Similarly, if the makeup of assets belonging to the parties are complicated, or the assets belonging to each party are vastly dissimilar in value, then a mirror will in these terms may not be appropriate. Furthermore, with mirror wills in place, there is no guarantee that the surviving partner will not simply change their will after the death of their partner, in line with the principles of testamentary freedom. This can leave the surviving partner’s will subject to dispute and defeats the intention around the drafting of the mirror wills, namely that the first partner to die knows that their children will receive an inheritance on their partner’s death. Therefore, when creating mirror wills, a strong element of trust is required between the parties that their surviving partner will honour their wishes, and if this is not the case, disputes can arise. Mutual Wills In order to address these deficiencies regarding mirror wills, one alternative is to draft mutual wills. This is when two people prepare wills on the agreement that they will not be revoked by the survivor of them. This can provide reassurance to the parties as they will know that whoever passes away first, their wishes will be complied with. However, this can also bring complications for the surviving partner, for instance if the surviving partner remarries or has more children, or they dispose of assets during their lifetime which are given as legacies in a will. Due to this, despite the advantages they would appear to create in terms of certainty of distribution mutual wills are far less common. Potential solution? One solution to the issues identified above is to draft a mirror will with a life interest trust. This can safeguard the assets under the trust and ensure that they are distributed in line with your wishes to the intended beneficiaries. For example, if both partners share ownership of a property, one partner can leave a life interest trust to their child/children in which their portion of the property will go to their child/children subject to their partner having the right to live in the property for the rest of their life. This means that even if their partner went on to remarry and have more children, the trust would provide reassurance that the assets would be left to the beneficiaries that are intended under the trust. Therefore, it is very important to seek professional advice when considering drafting mutual wills or mirror wills, particularly where trusts may be involved. It is also important to seek professional advice if you are planning to contest a mirror will or a mutual will or if you are the beneficiary or Executor of this nature that is facing a challenge. Should you find yourself involved in a dispute, JMW Solicitors offers specialised, expert advice that is tailored to your circumstances. Please do not hesitate to contact the team to discuss how we can be of assistance.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Open uri20210602 24919 nmhw7r?1622661395
David Wylde
2 months ago
On unresolved EU applications.
Photo 0 2021 07 29 09 09 57
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments
Alison parry 800x800px
JMW
2 months ago
Last week saw the release of Chambers and Partners High Net Worth Guide 2021. Chambers and Partners Private Wealth Disputes rankings table identifies the leading professional advisers to the Private Wealth market in North West. Their research into the top ranked firms provides all the relevant information required when looking to procure legal or other advisory services. Chambers Research is conducted by 200 Research Analysts, across 200 jurisdictions and provides nearly 6,000 rankings tables. Annually, they collect hundreds of thousands of responses from clients, the majority via in-depth interview. This year my team was ranked top tier in "Band 1" and the firm was described by one interviewee as being a "professional, modern firm delivering expert advice". On a personal level, I have been ranked as a "Band 2" individual with one interviewee saying "Alison Parry is one of the best litigators in Manchester" and "her strengths are her obvious expertise, her capability and her empathy". If you need expert legal advice and practical support in relation to disputes concerning wills, trusts and inheritances whether that be in your capacity as an executor, trustee, beneficiary, or someone who feels they’ve not been provided for either within a will or in a trust, we can help you. Alternatively, if your loved one did not leave a will and as a result you have been excluded from their estate, then it may be possible to claim on their estate. If you are looking for assistance in a dispute concerning someone’s estate, get in touch with my dedicated team today.
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
D8d87a61 2ae7 4075 bd6a 3d706fe8b158
Alec Hancock | Consultant CILEX Lawyer
2 months ago
Most appeals are drafted by Barristers (who usually had conduct of the hearing which is being appealed or will conduct the appeal), however in my holiday sickness case the trial Barrister didn’t think my clients had sufficient prospects of success. So I drafted the Appeal, which led to the Appeal Judge granted permission and my clients succeed at the appeal hearing, overturning their loss and turning it into a win. https://holidaysicknesslawyer.com/case-study/
Photo 0 2021 07 25 19 00 31 Photo 0 2021 07 25 18 59 51
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
D8d87a61 2ae7 4075 bd6a 3d706fe8b158
Alec Hancock | Consultant CILEX Lawyer
2 months ago
I took over a Holiday Sickness case where the previous law firm decided they could no longer proceed on a No Win, No Fee basis. The claim was weeks away from limitation but I agreed to take it on. I would have been able to provide Trial Advocacy in house without the client being responsible for a Barrister’s fee (and Barristers rarely offer No Win, No Fee agreements). The Defendant is now settling, something the Clients wouldn’t have been able to do if they didn’t come to me. The previous law firm would have just closed the file www.holidaysicknesslawyer.con
Photo 0 2021 07 25 18 49 36 Photo 0 2021 07 25 18 49 11
Comments Comment
1 Like
0 Comments
Open uri20210803 8323 1hdwvbd?1627973145
AL-HQ Law
2 months ago
AL-HQ Law specialise in Islamic Wills to provide the Muslim community both nationally and internationally a Shar’iah compliant service from qualified legal experts and islamic law specialists.
Photo 0 2021 07 24 02 30 40
Comments Comment
0 Like
0 Comments