Wills & Probate

[mandate7]

To Barmaid.

I have placed a further question, and since I am not familiar with answerbank, may have ploaced it in answers rather than questions. Perhaps you would endeavour to find it and let me have your professional
views.

Thanking you so much.

[factor-fiction]

I think you're pushing your luck, mandate... but Barmaid is very helpful and, you never know, she may trawl through AB to find your question.

[buildersmate]

This is the original question and the recently-added codicil to that question.
http://www.theanswerb...l/Question838829.html
Over to you Barmaid - since this one seems to have your name on it.

[buildersmate]

It's a pity that Barmaid hasn't come back to this, as i for one would like to have known more about this.
The principle that she talks about - dependent relative revocation - means that if you purport to revoke a will on the basis of a new will which you make is valid, but this new will is not valid, then the old will stands and is not revoked.
There would seem to be some evidence of this in your aunt's case - she revoked her existing will by destruction on the basis of an intention to make another will.
You are definitely going to need legal advice for this one - oh, and I trust that someone has a copy of the destroyed will?

[dzug]

My (inexpert) reading of an article on the subject came to a rather more restrictive conclusion - that if the aunt thought the laws of intestacy would result in the bequest still being met, then it is possible to uphold the bequest from the destroyed will

The intention to make another will with the bequest in is irrelevant - it didn't happen. Full stop.

Barmaid may have returned from holiday by tomorrow - maybe we shall get a more expert answer.