header-logo header-logo

15 October 2010 / Lisa Carkeek
Issue: 7437 / Categories: Features , Wills & Probate
printer mail-detail

Sister Act

Lisa Carkeek examines the tale of two sisters

In Charles v Fraser [2010] All ER (D) 68 (Aug) the court held that wills in reciprocal terms, but not expressly mutual, made in 1991 by two elderly sisters were irrevocable and binding on the survivor’s estate.

Two widowed sisters, Mabel Cook and Ethel Wilson, in 1991 executed wills with the assistance of a legal executive at the solicitors firm Harold Bell & Co. Each will left their entire estate to the other and, on the death of the second sister, half would go to friends and relatives of each side of the family. The wills were not expressed to be mutual but witnesses gave evidence that the sisters referred to “the will”. Mable died in 1995 without having revoked her will. Mable’s estate passed to Ethel.

Ethel continued to refer to “the will” but in 2003 altered her will deleting deceased beneficiaries, increasing the shares of other beneficiaries and adding two more. She did not alter the gifts to, or shares of, any of the beneficiaries

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll