Oh those Wills, and how they can be interpreted.

[Alan SHARP]

Greetings.

In research today, I came upon this reported challenge on the interpretation of a will, and what was intended by a Sister when she desired that a Mortgage & Building Association deposit, be bequeathed to her brother. The challenge being over the accrued interest there upon, annually reinvested with the latest capital deposit, and reinvested as capital.

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bi ... ge+bryce--

Alan SHARP.

[Russell]

Hi Alan
That's a fascinating intepretation based purely on the plain text of the Will. It shows that regardless of the view you may have of lawyers, when they do their job properly they pick up that sort of plain english statement and turn it into a form of legal goggledegook which precludes misinterpretation.
The moral being - if you want to make sure your £28.00 goes to the correct person spend a £100.00 on the lawyers fees

Russell

[Currie]

We mustn’t be too hard on the lawyers, they are not in the business of right and wrong, or fair and unfair, just in the business of what you can get away with. The fact that the deceased woman’s intentions would have been vividly clear even to a befuddled Dodo is of little matter once the lawyers turn up.

And speaking of wills, here’s a newspaper notice I downloaded a couple of days ago for a third cousin, once removed, of mine. It is from the 1920s. I’ve changed names and places to protect the innocent, mainly myself. The three spinster sisters had no other siblings and were the end of that branch of my tree.

Former Torquay Lady’s Will.
Miss Spinster One, c/o The London Joint City and Midland Bank, Liverpool, formerly of Wherever, Torquay, Devon, who died on June 26th last, has left ₤9,641 10s 11d. Probate is granted to her sisters, Spinster Two and Spinster Three, of Torquay, Edward Whatever, of Totnes, Solicitor, and Leonard However, of The FieIdmouse, Crowsnest. After directing that her body shall be cremated, and, before doing so, a surgeon shall open a vein so as to be sure her body is dead, that no religious service is to be held and only slight mourning worn, she gives ₤100 to the Rome Society for the Protection of Animals, £100 to the Naples Society for the Protection of Animals, £50 to the Torquay Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ₤50 to the Canine Defence League, £50 to Our Dumb Friends’ League. On the death of the survivor of her sisters she further gives her antique furniture, silver, Sheffield plate, old china, oil paintings, water colours, engravings, ancient books, and brocades to the Mayor and Corporation of Gloucester for the Museum in the City, or, if declined by them, then successively , for the Corporations of Bristol and Exeter; £200 to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, £300 to the Canine Defence League, £500 to Our Dumb Friends' League, £500 to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ₤300 to the Dogs’ Home, Battersea, ₤500 to the Home of Rest for Horses, Crickewood; £100 to the Anti-Vivisection Society; and the ultimate residue between The Naples Society for the Protection of Animals and the Rome Society for the Protection of Animals.

No offence to animal lovers but she reminds me of a not so dearly departed aunt of mine who was as mad as a meat axe. I wonder what would have happened if they opened the vein and she was still pumping. Were they supposed to rush her to a hospital or let her bleed to death?

Alan

[trish1]

Hi Alan
That's a fascinating intepretation based purely on the plain text of the Will. It shows that regardless of the view you may have of lawyers, when they do their job properly they pick up that sort of plain english statement and turn it into a form of legal goggledegook which precludes misinterpretation.
The moral being - if you want to make sure your £28.00 goes to the correct person spend a £100.00 on the lawyers fees

Russell

Your moral has current meaning - We have just spent what I think is a small fortune in legal fees to overcome issues that now seem to arise because of the multitude of family relationships that may exist now or in the future - regardless that the current family has existed in its current form for the past 30 years. It STILL may not overcome some financial issues of the future. The obvious solution is to spend all the money before death, so much has been spent to ensure "nothing" goes to the correct person.

It is also virtually impossible (in my world - I don't know the situation in Scottish Law) to disinherit a child - regardless of what is written in a will.

Trish

[Falkyrn]

To be fair to those who challenged the will in the original topic the problem, I believe, has arisen because the will was written so specifically as to include a deposit receipt number as being the limit of the inheritance.

[Alan SHARP]

To be fair to those who challenged the will in the original topic the problem, I believe, has arisen because the will was written so specifically as to include a deposit receipt number as being the limit of the inheritance.

Agreed. - Which to my mind begs two questions.

# When the lawyer, or their client, was being precise enough to nominate the deposit number, [in addition to naming the Association and depositor] was the client advised that the sum involved [covered by the will] would only be the original "capital" investment, and not any subsequent investments and or interest earned ? [Remiss of duty and care ?]

# Did the Public Trust Office, when they came to administer the will/estate, decide that they would be short of available funds, if they did not challenge the popular interpretation of the will ? It may have been the only asset, of consequence, to provide adequate cash. [Looking after no one ?]

As stated elsewhere I now operate as a partner with a Deceased Estate, and have been closely involved with a number of other Estates, including being Executor. When my Son in law died a month ago, without a will, my daughter was advised that she did not need to seek probate, if he had assets under $15,000 in his own name. By NZ law that does not include his car, but what she has now found, that as his compulsory KIWI SAVER account [not long introduced] was just over the $15,000, with the wash up final instalment, she now has to apply. The threshold being that sum in any one asset, so another expensive hurdle to jump. No doubt there will be further hurdles, as the ramifications of various statutes, come into effect.

Alan SHARP.