Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Coat's Trs v Coats |
Legal Rights - Collation is only applicable if there is more than one claimant for legitim - Lots of money, 4 children received advances and the 5th child did not. The legitim fund was £50000. The 5th person attempted to apply collation but couldn't since only one child was claiming legal rights |
|
|
Harvie's Exrs v Harvie's Trs |
Legal rights - discharge - widow was sent info so she could make an informed choice between legal aid and legacy. She died before the papers reached her. Before she died she continued to live in the property her husband left her. Her executor argued she hadn't made an election as she hadn't had enough info. However she had impliedly accepted the will terms by living in the property. Held that there was no absolute rule that independent legal advice is needed before provisions are binding. Held that she had made an election. |
|
|
Walker v Orr's trs |
Legal rights - election - children elected legal aid but not given proper advice or saw the will - revoked it 13 years later and claimed legacy instead and court allowed this as the election was never valid |
|
|
Dawson's trs v Dawson |
Legal rights - election revocation - Inaccurate info of value of legal rights to a widow. She was allowed to revoke but only before the end of the prescriptive period |
|
|
Hog v Hog |
Legal rights - effect of discharge on the estate - Testator had 6 children and 5 of them had been given advances and legacies. Discharged their claim for legal rights. How much could the remaining child claim of the legitim fund? court held that the remaining child could claim the whole of the legitim fund as others had discharged their claims prior to the death so they had no vested rights |
|
|
Kerr Petyr |
Intestate - artificial intestacy - Deceased survived by widow and daughter of previous marriage. Will left whole estate to the wide and the daughter wanted to claim legal rights. Widow renounced her legacy to defeat the claim. Estate became intestate so the widows prior rights exhausted the estate so nothing was left to claim legal rights on. |
|
|
Pirie v Clydesdale bank |
Intestate - Rights of spouse if testate - Mr P married Mrs P 20 years younger than him and had a daughter from previous marriage who lived with them. Mrs p made al the money for the family and looked after mr p when he had cancer and mr p was retired. Mr p left his estate to his daughter but promised mrs P he would leave it to her. Court held after he died that she couldn't get it since it was tough and the will was valid |
|
|
Rhodes v Peterson |
Testate - intention to test - will must be statement of final intention of testator. Must have reached the stage of commitment. Letter was sent by widow to daughter and wanted to give the property to her and let the letter establish the will. She died and the sons challenged the letter saying that since it was signed 'mum' it was invalid but the court said this was ok. There were no witnesses. Sons argued that the letter was a statement of future intention but the last line said 'this letter will establish your claim to the house' so the court viewed it as final intention. |
|
|
Jamieson's exrs |
Testate - intention to test - there was a formal document and a letter the woman created but died before she put it in the post and it changed her will. Held wording such as 'i would like' and 'i hope' referred to a future intention and not a final intention |
|
|
Ayrshire Hospice Petrs |
Testate - intention to test - Woman' written 3 page document found in an envelope marked 'will' was held to be a valid will |
|
|
Morrison v Macleans Trs |
Testate - Capacity to test - Eccentric colonel. Will provided money for housekeeper. Money was to go to 'poor boys named MacLean' relatives challenged the will and said he was insane. Speech was bizaree and obscene - he said he was fed from an eagles nest when young. Court held the will was still valid. |
|
|
McGilvary v Gilmartin |
Testate - facility and circumvention - widow persuaded by daughter to sign over a property |
|
|
Anderson v Beacon Fellowship |
Testate - facility and circumvention - man suffered from mental health issues taken advantage of by religious group who persuaded him to give them his estate. Financial and religious pressure was enough to show circumvention |
|
|
Pascoe-Watson v Brock's Exr |
Testate - facility and circumvention - B was an alcoholic and changed her will from giving PW money to W who supplied her with whiskey and brought it to her door. PW challenged the will on the basis of alcoholism. Court upheld the challenge since B depended on W |
|
|
Gaul v Deery |
Testate - undue influence - 91 year old woman friend with taxi driver who gave her financial advice and she altered her will in his favour. Successfully challenged by relatives |
|
|
Cathcart's trs v Bruce |
Legacies - uncertainty - legacy to children of general alexander bruce - middle name confusion and children fought over. Can lead to intrinsic evidence or the legacy will collapse |
|
|
savage v purchase
|
cohabitants and one died intestate. shows how little rights cohabitants have its up to the court under s29 2006 act. but court cannot ignore lengthy cohabitation
|
|
|
Greenan v Courtney
|
legacy - revocation - 2 conditions must be satisfied. rebut the presumption that you would not disinherit your child. some evidence in writing that you intended to exclude the child. onus on the child to invoke the rebuttal.
|
|
|
Kieller v Thomson
|
errors in name spelling is ok if it is clear who they are
|
|
|
coupar v valentine
|
if it says 'to my wife' and they are divorced at date of death she still remains entitled to the legacy
|
