Michael Tringham surveys contentious probate cases
Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ mirror wills bequeathed their estates to each other—and on the survivor’s death to their adopted son Terry Marley, a joint tenant of the family home. The couple’s solicitor and his secretary went to their home in 1999 to supervise and witness execution of the wills. But the couple signed each other’s will; the error emerged only after Mr Rawlings’ death in 2006.
The consequence is that under intestacy rules the home and £70,000 estate will pass to the Rawlings’ natural sons, who were said not to be close to their parents. Now Mrs Justice Proudman has dismissed Mr Marley’s High Court action challenging what was clearly an unintended outcome (Marley v T and M Rawlings [2011] EWHC 161 (Ch), [2011] All ER (D) 43 (Feb)).
She decided that the Wills Act 1837 as amended provided a complete answer to the claim. Under s 9 “no will shall be valid unless—“(a) it is in writing, and signed by the testator…; and (b) it appears
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
