Will Destruction Drama: When last wishes hang in the balance

The dispute

Ms Keats reportedly tore her Will up in order that the intestacy rules would apply to her estate on death.  The impact of this is that her sister would benefit from her £800,000 estate, rather than her five distant cousins named as beneficiaries in the Will.

Due to her poor health, Ms Keats was unable to destroy the Will fully herself but her solicitor tore the remainder of the Will up, allegedly at her direction.

The dispute arose as to whether the Will was validly revoked by Ms Keats’ actions and that of her solicitor, and whether she had the mental capacity to make that decision at the time of destroying it.

Reports suggest that, due to different reasons, Ms Keats’ relationships with both her sister and cousins may have been strained.

The legal bit

Section 20 Wills Act 1837 sets out the conditions for successful revocation of a Will.  The circumstances that applied in Mrs Keats case were:

• revocation by burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the Will,
• either themselves or by another person in the testator’s presence and at their direction, and
• with the intention of revoking it.

Mental capacity

The cousins argued that Ms Keats was unlikely to have had the mental capacity to direct the solicitor to destroy the Will, due to the painkillers she was on.  However, Ms Keats’ solicitor confirmed that at the time of destruction Ms Keats, who was a longstanding client, hadn’t changed her demeanour, despite her age and illness and was aware why the solicitor was in attendance.  The solicitor emphasised that if Ms Keats was to destroy the Will and the intestacy rules were to apply, then her sister would inherit everything – and she was content that Ms Keats understood this.  This was consistent with a conversation that Ms Keats had with the solicitor in November of the previous year.

Both sides argued plausible reasons to support their case, with the cousins arguing that Ms Keats had a strained relationship with her sister, disapproving of her alleged past infidelity in marriage.  On the flip side, it was argued that Ms Keats no longer wished for her cousins to inherit, due to a fallout after they threatened to put her in a care home if she took another fall.

The case was heard in the High Court, where it was held that Ms Keats had a ‘sufficiently lucid interval’ during which the revocation took place. There was tearing of the Will personally, with intent to revoke and Ms Keats ‘properly authorised’ her solicitor to complete the destruction.

This case demonstrates that care should be taken when revoking a Will.  A simpler and potentially more effective alternative, albeit potentially less convenient whilst Ms Keats was in hospital, would have been to make a new Will, setting out her current wishes regarding inheritance and with a specific clause revoking the current Will. As ever, it also demonstrates the value of involving a professional, as without the solicitors’ involvement in fully destroying the Will and without the evidence she gave, perhaps there would have been a different outcome?

For advice on making, amending or revoking your Will contact a member of our Wealth Preservation team.