header-logo header-logo

29 September 2023 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 8042 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Promises, promises: mutual wills & estoppel

139628
Mark Pawlowski asks whether proprietary estoppel can be used to underpin the enforcement of mutual wills
  • There is no reason why proprietary estoppel could not be applied, in appropriate cases, to resolve the problems associated with oral agreements intended to give rise to mutual wills which do not comply with s 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

Mutual wills arise where two parties (usually husband and wife) make wills, pursuant to a binding agreement, in similar form in each other’s favour on terms that the survivor will not revoke his or her will after the death of the other. The doctrine operates on the basis that each testator provides consideration for the other’s promise by making his or her will in the agreed terms and not altering it to the date of death. In other words, the traditional view is that there must be a binding legal contract between the two testators for the doctrine to apply: see, for example, Re Goodchild [1997] 3 All

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll