Identifying the witnesses of a Will

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Soy but this simply wrong.

I don’t think so

https://www.cripps.co.uk/will-disputes/requirements-valid-will/

Keep_pedalling

chocolatepennyfarthing wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice. Unfortunately it looks like this is going to be very messy. It’s such a shame he didn’t get a solicitor to draw up his Will. It’s clear from what he’s written what he wanted to happen to his estate, but because of some grammatical mistakes that’s not going to happen. And now because of the way it’s been witnessed it looks like it might be invalid.

If the Will is going to have to go to court to be decided do people need to get legal representation to argue their case or will the court just decide on the basis of the Will ?

If you are the executor then you should take legal advice. Apart from the witness issues you have mentioned grammatical errors as well. If a solicitor confirms the invalidity of the will, then there is no point of any further legal action just administer the estate as intestate and apply for letters of administration.

The cost of such advice should come from the estate.

Mistral001

My understanding is that it not the OP who is contesting the will with the unreadable signatures as it benefits them. Is this correct?

Yorkshireman99

Mistral001 wrote: »

My understanding is that it not the OP who is contesting the will with the unreadable signatures as it benefits them. Is this correct?

She has not said. It is a mater for the executor.

chocolatepennyfarthing

I’m a minor beneficiary which ever way it goes. The issue is with others who could see significant swings in what they get depending on whether or not the will is valid. It’s a real mess and is causing lots of arguments - and there doesn’t appear to be a clear answer so I guess it will end up going to court.

Malthusian

As far as I can see Keep Pedalling is right about there being no formal requirement for the witnesses to be identified, at least as far as the Wills Act goes.

No will shall be valid unless— [...]

(d)each witness either—

(i)attests and signs the will; or

(ii)acknowledges his signature, in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness),

but no form of attestation shall be necessary.

I can't however rule out there being some sort of court precedent that a signature without any identifying details doesn't satisfy the requirements. Whichever way, I agree with everyone else there is a strong chance of the Will not being accepted to probate.

Try asking his neighbours or close friends or anyone else who might conceivably have been a natural choice of witness. If they're willing to confirm they signed the Will, it may still be valid. It's a long shot (one or both may be dead or have moved away, or he may have got it witnessed by a random bank employee or someone else you'll have no chance of finding) but it may only take a few minutes to save the estate a lot of money.

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

As far as I can see Keep Pedalling is right about there being no formal requirement for the witnesses to be identified, at least as far as the Wills Act goes.

I can't however rule out there being some sort of court precedent that a signature without any identifying details doesn't satisfy the requirements. Whichever way, I agree with everyone else there is a strong chance of the Will not being accepted to probate.

Try asking his neighbours or close friends or anyone else who might conceivably have been a natural choice of witness. If they're willing to confirm they signed the Will, it may still be valid. It's a long shot (one or both may be dead or have moved away, or he may have got it witnessed by a random bank employee or someone else you'll have no chance of finding) but it may only take a few minutes to save the estate a lot of money.

I am sorry but he and you are quite wrong. The will Act 1837 requires the will to be signed and dated and witnessed, the witnesses MUST give there names and addresses. No ifs, ands or buts!!!!

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

I am sorry but he and you are quite wrong. The will Act 1837 requires the will to be signed and dated and witnessed, the witnesses MUST give there names and addresses. No ifs, ands or buts!!!!

Corbett v Newey says otherwise.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/undated-will-lacked-testamentary-intent-1317736.html

Yorkshireman99

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Corbett v Newey says otherwise.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/undated-will-lacked-testamentary-intent-1317736.html

Noted. This is a rather exceptional case in detail..not as straight forward as it seems. Have you looked at the wills act?

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Noted. This is a rather exceptional case in detail..not as straight forward as it seems. Have you looked at the wills act?

I have, and I can find nothing that says a will has to be dated, or even that a witness has to print their name.

Obviously not dating a will is going to cause major issues if there is a second will kicking around, and as in this case not being able to identify the witnesses opens up a will to challenge, but if the parties take it all the way the final decision is going to be down to the courts. If either of the witnesses can be found and makes an affidavit that they did indeed witness and sign the will then that should provide a strong defence against a challenge.