Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Testamentary capacity - Coggle Diagram
Testamentary capacity
-
Intention
Vitiating Factors
Mistake
Re Meyer
- Mistakenly executed the one another's codicil. Codicil not valid.
In the Goods of Oswald
- Testatrix did not realise the revocation clause. Revocation clause can be excluded.
In the Goods of Boehm
- The name of a different person was inserted into the will, mistakenly. Court allowed the wrong name to be removed
Fraud
Allen v M'Pherson
- False representations being made about the appellant's character to get larger bequest = Clear fraud
Wilkinson v Joughin
- Wife conceals another marriage deliberately to get bequest = Fraud
Re Raphael
- Attempting to deceive even after the testator's death can amount to fraud
Undue Influence
Hall v Hall
- Threats from beneficiary = will fails
1. No presumption
- Mynn v Robinson : Relationship and deceptive behavior lead to presumption
2. Coercion
- Wingrove v Wingrove : Power to coerce and power must be exercised
Suspicious Circumstances
-
-
Other Circumstances
Thomas v Jones
- The testator's solicitors prepared a will which included a residuary clause substantially benefiting his daughter and was prepared when the testator mental capacity is failing
Knowledge and approval
Cleare v Cleare
- If a man were to sign a paper of the contents of which he knew nothing, it would be no will
Cartwright v Cartwright
- Will upheld because of evidence that the testatrix understood the state of her affairs and to give what was proper in the way she has done
Effective time
Hodson v Barnes
- "Everything I possess. - J." , was held not to constitute a will as they could not be said to dispose of property on his death
In the Estate of Knibbs
- The words were held to be 'a mere exchange of gossip spoken' without animus testandi.
Mental Capacity
Sound Mind
-
Test in Banks v Goodfellow
- Nature of the business
- Recollection of property- extent of property
- The object of his bounty
- Manner of distribution
-
Unsound mind
Delusions
Dew v Clark
- Will is invalid as the testator's delusions extended to his thought about his daughter and caused him to disinherit her.
Boughton v Knight
- A will which left the bulk of the estate to virtual strangers was held invalid because of the testator's insane dislike of his sons.
Smith v Tebbitt
- The will was held invalid as it had clearly been influenced by the delusions concerning Dr Smith and the sister.
Lucid Interval
In the Estate of Walker
- Testatrix = lunatic. But, mentally competent at eh time of execution. Will is valid.
Chambers and Yatman v Queen’s Proctor
- Testator = suffered delusions. He was perfectly sensible when executing the will. Will was valid.
Angulia v Rahimaboo
- Testator = insane. Executed a will during a lucid interval. Agreed by doctors. Willwas valid.
Rule in Parker v Felgate
Parker v Felgate
- Competent testator gives instructions to make a will but loses mental competence before the will is executed. Will is valid if instructions given to a solicitor.
- Exception to the principle that the testator should have capacity when the will is executed
Perera v Perera
- If a person gives a solicitor instructions to make a will, and the solicitor prepares it according to those instructions, the will is valid as long as, when signing it, the person can still understand and agree with what the will says.