Questions about witnesses

Manxman_in_exile

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

It is only the certificate provider who needs to know you, someone who simply acts as a witness can be a stranger.

I'm sure that is the legal position (at least regarding POAs). It just seems illogical to me.


EDIT: I'm also willing to accept that I may be overthinking it owing to previous personal experience!

Manxman_in_exile

DigForVictory wrote: »

We Very Rarely need to prove the witnesses saw what they thought of the people they thought. Weddings tend to be witnessed by the guests all of whom know at least one party & the registrars are pretty tight on the details.

Wills are taken much more lightly. (Which is a bit hair raising when you think about it.) Hence the outrage when things don't go to plan.

When one of our neighbours got married at a Register Office, they told me that they'd basically dragged a couple of witnesses in off the street. Whether that's true or not, I can't say!


When we got married at a Register Office, the witnesses were the only guests, but they did know us both.


In our case we didn't tell family we had married and that may have been true of our neighbours too. Don't know what that says about the people who live in our road!

DigForVictory

Today the Registrars are sweetly & supportively thorough on evidence of ID etc. They do have the legal requirements of the banns to run through too, whereas you can write a Will any time you want.

That casual approach to timing may underpin/reinforce the casual approach to witnessing.

Manxman_in_exile

DigForVictory wrote: »

Today the Registrars are sweetly & supportively thorough on evidence of ID etc. They do have the legal requirements of the banns to run through too, whereas you can write a Will any time you want.

That casual approach to timing may underpin/reinforce the casual approach to witnessing.

We only married in 2012 (after co-habiting for nearly 30 years) and our neighbours only shortly before.


I can't honestly remember what checks etc the Registrar and his office carried out.

Flugelhorn

thinking about the witnesses of wills, my mother's will that I recently submitted for probate was written by a distant cousin (solicitor) and witnessed by him and his wife. By the time I was applying for probate nearly 30 years later both witnesses had died - am sure that happens quite often and fortunately no evidence was required but adds more questions - eg should you have things re-witnessed if the original witness dies / becomes demented / can't be found?... chaos

Manxman_in_exile

Flugelhorn wrote: »

thinking about the witnesses of wills, my mother's will that I recently submitted for probate was written by a distant cousin (solicitor) and witnessed by him and his wife. By the time I was applying for probate nearly 30 years later both witnesses had died - am sure that happens quite often and fortunately no evidence was required but adds more questions - eg should you have things re-witnessed if the original witness dies / becomes demented / can't be found?... chaos

Out of curiosity I dug out one of my very old textbooks "The Law of Succession", Parry and Clark, 7th edition, 1977(!). (Seems like only yesterday!)


On a brief read of the relevant pages, pp20 - 23, I don't think it matters what happens to the witnesses subsequent to their witnessing the will, but they need mental capacity when witnessing it: the term in their "presence" refers to mental as well as physical presence (p21).


The book does not seem to address the question I initially raised. It simply refers throughout to the "testator" and says nothing about the witnesses having to know the testator. I would have thought that there must have been some decided case on this, but perhaps not.


Mind you, I wouldn't recommend anyone going to court relying on a legal text book that is 42 years old!

Sea_Shell

The current system is wide open to abuse and fraud, if there is no requirement to use a solicitor.

I could type up a will preporting to be that of my elderly father, collude with 2 of my friend to "witness" someone, not necessarily my father, sign said will. Or literally fake the signature myself if the witnesses were "in on it with me".

Or maybe it really was the father signing, but under what circumstances??

If you are almost the only family they had left who would ever know???

Sea_Shell

Also, if the testator is very frail, physically, their signature may differ hugely from one, say the bank, has on file from years ago.

Knowing the testator IS the person physically signing the will is crucial to avoid fraud in my opinion.

Manxman_in_exile

Sea_Shell wrote: »

The current system is wide open to abuse and fraud, if there is no requirement to use a solicitor.

I could type up a will preporting to be that of my elderly father, collude with 2 of my friend to "witness" someone, not necessarily my father, sign said will. Or literally fake the signature myself if the witnesses were "in on it with me".

Or maybe it really was the father signing, but under what circumstances??

If you are almost the only family they had left who would ever know???

Don't start putting ideas in people's heads! Or maybe I'm guilty of you thinking about it

Manxman_in_exile

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Also, if the testator is very frail, physically, their signature may differ hugely from one, say the bank, has on file from years ago.

Knowing the testator IS the person physically signing the will is crucial to avoid fraud in my opinion.

My point exactly. Bearing in mind the law is so strict about the interpretation etc of wills, this seems a strange loophole to me.