³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

View the related checklists about Intestate

Administration actions—table of cases

Administration actions—table of cases Validity of Wills Topic Case name Summary Author Revocation clause Re estate of Sangha, deceased (probate); Sangha v Estate of Sangha (represented by the second defendant pursuant to the Order of Master Bowles dated 5 April 2018) and others [2022] EWHC 2157 (Ch) News Analysis: Revocation clauses and section 9(d) of the Wills Act 1837 (Sangha v Sangha)The Court allowed the appeal deciding that the revocation clause in a Will disposing only of Indian assets had the effect of revoking a previous English Will and dismissed the appeal holding that it was not necessary for each witness to acknowledge their signature after the testator had acknowledged his signature to them, Francis Ng, Selborne Chambers Disclosure Topic Case name Summary Author Sealing of a Will Executor of HRH Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh (Deceased) and another v Guardian News and Media [2022] EWCA Civ 1081 News Analysis: The sealing of Royal Wills vs principles of open justice (Executor of HRH Prince Philip, the...

View the related flowcharts about Intestate

Administrator (entitlement to grant)—flowchart

Administrator (entitlement to grant)—flowchart This flowchartdeals with the position where an individual dies with a Will which cannot be administered because there are no executors available to act, perhaps because none were appointed in the Will or where those appointed have predeceased or are unable or incapable of acting. In such a circumstance an administrator needs to be appointed to administer the estate with a grant of letters of administration with Will annexed. Such

View the related practice notes about Intestate

Will interpretation—property passing on death

Will interpretation—property passing on death Rules relating to the construction of Wills have developed over many years and those surrounding the interpretation of dispositions were quite unclear due to the differing rules relating to personalty and realty. This was changed by the statutory effect of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982). The case of Marley v Rawlings confirmed that the modern approach is to ascertain the testator’s intention from their words. While no longer as definitive as they were previously, many of the previous rules remain a helpful starting point. On the basis of the caselaw in this area, practitioners are advised to use only precedents that are in common usage and not to depart from them without careful consideration. References to property in a Will speak from the date of death A reference to real and/or personal property (for a discussion of real and personal estate, see Practice Note: Devolution of assets and the need for a grant) in a Will speaks from the...

Contents of Wills—rules of apportionment

Contents of Wills—rules of apportionment The rules of apportionment should be considered at the moment of drafting the Will. Whenever a Will creates a trust, some rules of apportionment may be applied or excluded unless they have been dealt with expressly in the wording of the Will. Essentially, the purpose of the apportionment rules is to strike a balance between those interested in the capital of the trust (the remaindermen) and those interested in the income derived from that capital (the life tenant). These rules have been set out in cases and by statute. In the main, the reasoning behind the rules was that a testator, had they thought about it, would probably have wanted the trustees to maintain that balance. Therefore, equity intervened to presume that intention on behalf of the testator. As the principle of apportionment was always to be presumed, there was no necessity to seek any evidence of intention to include the rule (although evidence would be needed to dispel the presumption). Trusts...

View the related precedents about Intestate

Variation—deed—to insert notional Will—by statutory beneficiaries on intestacy

Variation—deed—to insert notional Will—by statutory beneficiaries on intestacy THIS DEED is made on [date] Parties 1 [Insert names of statutory beneficiaries entitled on intestacy] of [insert addresses of statutory beneficiaries entitled on intestacy] (the Statutory Beneficiaries) 2 [Insert names of administrators] of [insert addresses of administrators] (the Administrators) BACKGROUND (A) [Insert name of deceased] (the Deceased) died intestate on [insert date of death] survived by the Statutory Beneficiaries who are the Deceased’s [ [surviving spouse OR civil partner] ] [and] [[insert details of surviving relatives who are entitled on intestacy] all of full age] (B) Under the provisions contained in section 46(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 the Statutory Beneficiaries are between them entitled on intestacy to the Deceased’s entire estate with [[insert name of Deceased’s surviving spouse or civil partner] entitled to the Deceased’s chattels and payment of the fixed net sum] [and] the Statutory Beneficiaries entitled to the Deceased’s residuary estate in equal shares absolutely. (C)...

Variation—deed—to insert legacy on intestacy—by statutory beneficiaries

Variation—deed—to insert legacy on intestacy—by statutory beneficiaries THIS DEED is made on [date] Parties 1 [Names of statutory beneficiaries entitled on intestacy] of [addresses] (the Statutory Beneficiaries) 2 [Name of new beneficiary of inserted legacy] of [address] (the New Beneficiary) 3 [Names of administrators] of [addresses] (the Administrators) BACKGROUND (A) [Name of deceased] (the Deceased) died intestate on [date of death] survived by the Statutory Beneficiaries who are the Deceased’s [ [surviving spouse OR civil partner] ] [and] [[details of surviving relatives who are entitled on intestacy] all of full age]. (B) Under the provisions contained in section 46(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 the Statutory Beneficiaries are between them absolutely entitled on intestacy to the Deceased’s residuary estate [after the distribution of the Deceased’s chattels and payment of the fixed net sum to [name of Deceased’s surviving spouse or civil partner]]. (C) Under the provisions contained in rule 22 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, SI...

View the related q&as about Intestate

Where the sole executor and residuary beneficiary (A) of the testator T’s estate survives T but dies before taking a grant of probate, leaving a Will appointing B as executor of their own estate, what steps are required in order for B to administer T’s estate?

Where the sole executor and residuary beneficiary (A) of the testator T’s estate survives T but dies before taking a grant of probate, leaving a Will appointing B as executor of their own estate, what steps are required in order for B to administer T’s estate? On the basis that the sole appointed executor (A) died before taking out the grant in T’s estate and there is no surviving executor (nor a substitute executor), the chain of representation has been broken and the grant will need to be one of administration with Will annexed. See Practice Note: The chain of representation. The Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987, SI 1987/2024, r 20 sets out the ‘Order of priority for grant where deceased left a Will’. The first person in that order is the executor (ie A) but in the absence of an executor (ie because A has died) it is necessary to scan the subsequent list to determine a surviving person who is able to apply for a grant. As noted in...

A solicitor obtained a limited grant of letters of administration pending the deceased’s eldest child attaining 18 years. The ‘child’ is now 18 years old and wishes to apply for a cessate grant. What inheritance tax form should the solicitor send to the probate registry with the oath?

A solicitor obtained a limited grant of letters of administration pending the deceased’s eldest child attaining 18 years. The ‘child’ is now 18 years old and wishes to apply for a cessate grant. What inheritance tax form should the solicitor send to the probate registry with the oath? This Q&A considers a situation where an intestate left two minor children. As such it would seem, in the absence of anyone of higher degree, they were entitled to take out letters of administration to the estate. In those circumstances, we assume that the grant was obtained by someone with parental responsibility (see Commentary: 62 Oath for administration by persons with parental responsibility pursuant to a residence order or child arrangements order for minor children jointly entitled to the whole of the estate: Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents [1609]) lasting until one of the children reaches 18 years of age. It is not clear whether the estate when the Grant was obtained was such that it required an...

View the related News about Intestate

Question of the week: What is the process to obtain Letters of Administration when the deceased is survived by a minor child, a mother, and a sister, with the surviving parent (father) wishing to renounce their right to administer the estate, and the mother and sister seeking to take out the Letters of Administration?

This Q&A considers the application for a grant of letters of administration by the deceased's mother and sister for the use and benefit of the deceased's minor child, where the child's surviving parent does not wish to apply for a grant.

Private Client weekly highlights—3 October 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Re PG, Serious Medical Treatment, which contains analysis of the complex and challenging clinical issues surrounding the investigation and treatment of cancer where P lacks or may lack capacity; (2) The direct payment scheme for IHT has been extended to investment providers; (3) Little v Olympian Homes Ltd in which the court considered whether email correspondence or the party’s conduct gave rise to a waiver of a party’s entitlement to contractual interest; (4) Taylor v Savik, an insolvency case which considered, inter alia, the doctrine of sham and the law relating to resulting trusts; (5) Marcus v Marcus, in which the court held that a stepchild could be regarded as a child of the settlor and therefore be included in the class of beneficiaries, and (6) D’Aloia v Persons Unknown Category A and others, in which the stablecoin Tether was held to be property in a landmark judgment that considers the tracing of cryptoassets.