Succession 2

Question 1

Where there is common calamity deciding who died first will be decided on balance of probabilities and only resumed when unclear

Answer 1

Lamb v Lamb

Question 2

Where name in will is ambiguous, evidence is needed to prove what was meant

Answer 2

Nasmyth’s Trs v NSPCC

Question 3

Wife convicted of CULPABLE HOMICIDE after years of domestic violence - forfeiture rule applied

Answer 3

Burns v Secretary of State for Scotland

Question 4

Woman convicted of MURDER after years of domestic violence - s5 of forfeiture act can be amended in cases of murder

Answer 4

Patterson, Petr

Question 5

Only the killer can apply under the forfeiture act

Answer 5

Tannock v Tannock

Question 6

Debts live on

Answer 6

Machin’s Trs v Machin

Question 7

Legal rights are a debt and so must be accepted for money and not property (case involved claiming for shares)

Answer 7

Cameron’s Trs v Maclean

Question 8

Both legal rights and legacy can be claimed in cases of partial intestacy

Answer 8

Naismith v Boyes

Question 9

If only 1 claimant then no collation needed

Answer 9

Coats Trs v Coats

Question 10

Guardian granted access to modify will that already existed but unclear whether they can write a will that never existed in the first place

Answer 10

G Applicant 2009

Question 11

Court will not rewrite wills

Answer 11

P’s Guardian 2012

Question 12

‘Connie’ - held to be valid signature as was at end of the document

Answer 12

Draper v Thomason

Question 13

‘Do not lose this letter, lots of love Mum’ - testamentary intention

Answer 13

Rhodes v Peterson

Question 14

Signature to come at the end of a will so anything under that not to be considered part of the will

Answer 14

McLay v Farrell

Question 15

Doctrine of Adoption: list of instructions not signed in an envelope that said ‘will’ and signed

Answer 15

Davidson v Convy

Question 16

Codicils to be carried out exactly the same as wills to be valid

Answer 16

Downey’s Excrs

Question 17

Upheld presumption that will destroyed if not in possession

Answer 17

Lauder v Briggs

Question 18

Sol last known to be in possession of will. Court satisfied upon evidence that the will had been lost and not destroyed. As sol had it there was a copy on file alongside a deed of execution

Answer 18

W v W

Question 19

Revocation by destruction

Answer 19

Clyde v Clyde

Question 20

Implied revocation if later will doesn’t expressly revoke but contains inconsistent provs

Answer 20

Duthie’s Trs v Taylor

Question 21

Post natis rule: woman very unwell leading up to birth. Had baby and died 3 days later. Under circumstances held this was sufficient amount of time to amend will and so held it was her intention not to include the baby.

Answer 21

Stuart Gordon v Stuart Gordon

Question 22

Post natis: can request to reduce the whole will. Personal right of child only.

Answer 22

Stevenson’s Trs v Stevenson

Question 23

Belongings couldn’t have included the particular house in question because testator didn’t own that house when writing the will.

Money could be interpreted to include bank and saving accounts as well as cash.

Answer 23

Lawson Exec v Lawson

Question 24

‘All my other affect’
Interpreted as including a house as testator had previously mentioned living there with his granddaughter.

Answer 24

Crozier’s Trustee v Underwood

Question 25

Designation by relationship not a condition

Answer 25

Couper’s JF v Valentine

Question 26

Artificial intestacy

Answer 26

Kerr v Ptnr

Question 27

Calculable estate - won’t take into account heritable property located abroad (in relation to co-habitants?)

Answer 27

Kerr v Mangan

Question 28

Where there are multiple executors and there is a disagreement court may remove from office - has to be more than ‘disharmony’ - has to be ‘malversation’ like trusts

Answer 28

Campbell v Campbell’s Excrs