Heremiのブログ

Heremiのブログ

ブログの説明を入力します。

Amebaでブログを始めよう!

By Marriage


s.18 and s.20



s.18(1) Wills Act 1837 - will is revoked by TOR's marriage



Void marriage does not revoke wills


Voidable marriage does - Re Roberts



Nor revoked when:
s.18(3) expecting a marriage and TOR intended that the marriage will not revoke the will - Re Coleman (fiancé or fiancée)
Pilot v Gainfort - describing donee as my wife - ok
Sallis v Jones - TOR has a particular person in mind

s.18(4) - disposition in a will can take effect even after subsequent marriage


s.18(2) - disposition in a will in exercise of power of appointment would still take effect despite TOR is getting married.

Revocation by will, codicil and some writing (s.20)
Revocation clause - eg. "I hereby revoke all my previous wills"
- RC will not take effect if TOR has no K + A (Re Phelan)

Re Hawksley's settlement, Thorn v Dickens: implied revoked

revocation occurs when the later will is validly executed.

In the Goods of Hodgkinson - Will 2 revoked will 1, Will 3 revoked will 2, Will 1 will still be remained as revoked.

In the Goods of Durance - revoked by some writing (a letter). Formality requirement: TOR signed + witness reqmt of a will

revocation by destruction
s. 20 & Cheese v Lovejoy- burn, tearing, or otherwise destroying + intention

Hobbs v Knight - destroying essence of the instrument is sufficient
Re Adams - erasing signature suffice

In the Estate of Nunn - partial destruction might revoke part of the will, if the court can read and make sense of the remaining provisions

Destruction must be by TOR or in his presence + by his direction
In the Goods of Dadds - presence = line of sight

In the Estate of Kremer - need for presence

Gill v Gill - failure to stop destruction by wife=/= direction

Intention - animus revocandi

Brunt v Brunt - fail to revoke because TOR is "very drunk"


2 presumptions - mutilated (完全損毀) will & lost will

Bell v Fothergill - in case of mutilated will, presumption may be rebutted
Sugden v St. Leonards - lost will presumption.
d'Eye v Avery - presumption cannot apply if TOR never keeps the will
Chana v Chana - presumption will not apply if TOR hand the will to someone else for safe-keeping.

Conditional revocation
Re Jones -