Will has been destroyed.

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

Emmia said:

Can I presume that you're asking as you benefit under the previous will, but not the current will?

I think this scenario is a good reason to lodge your original will with HMCTS and for your executors (at least) to have a printed or scanned copy, so that the testator's final wishes are known, but the original remains undestroyed.

A copy of a will is not normally binding /valid even if the original is lost. It might just mean that intestacy rules will be used, as it will confirm that a previous will was revoked.

It doesn't involve me in any respect, other than I know the person(s) involved.

Ok, the situation regrading the destroyed Will has been clarified - it renders the estate intestate. I doubt there will be an answer to this part - it's the stuff of the type of legal dispute you read about in the papers - but what if there is some evidence that the author had destroyed their last Will because they changed their mind, with the intention of the previous Will remaining the 'one'?

Take a look at the Wills Act 1837, which covers all this. Parliament has laid down a specific process to revive a previously revoked will. The person in your case did not do that, so the previous will remains revoked. It’s a shame the testator was ignorant of that. 

It really is as simple as that. 

GDB2222

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26

No will revoked to be revived otherwise than by Re-execution or a Codicil to revive it.

No will or codicil, or any part thereof, which shall be in any manner revoked, shall be revived otherwise than by the re-execution thereof or by a codicil executed in manner herein-before required and showing an intention to revive the same; and when any will or codicil which shall be partly revoked, and afterwards wholly revoked, shall be revived, such revival shall not extend to so much thereof as shall have been revoked before the revocation of the whole thereof, unless an intention to the contrary shall be shown.

ThisIsWeird

GDB2222 said:

Take a look at the Wills Act 1837, which covers all this. Parliament has laid down a specific process to revive a previously revoked will. The person in your case did not do that, so the previous will remains revoked. It’s a shame the testator was ignorant of that.

It really is as simple as that.

It almost certainly will be as simple as that in this case.

But we know, in many cases, it isn't.

There are numerous examples in the press where Wills have been contested, often successfully going against the express wishes in the final valid copy.

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

GDB2222 said:

Take a look at the Wills Act 1837, which covers all this. Parliament has laid down a specific process to revive a previously revoked will. The person in your case did not do that, so the previous will remains revoked. It’s a shame the testator was ignorant of that.

It really is as simple as that.

It almost certainly will be as simple as that in this case.

But we know, in many cases, it isn't.

There are numerous examples in the press where Wills have been contested, often successfully going against the express wishes in the final valid copy.

Indeed, there can be lots of reasons for contesting a will. Undue influence. Not fit to make a will. Failure to provide for dependants ... 

ThisIsWeird

Wooooo. 

Some solicitors have advised that the current valid - intact - will remains valid, when the subsequent will has been deliberately destroyed by the author.

Does anyone on here know for certain?

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

Wooooo. 

Some solicitors have advised that the current valid - intact - will remains valid, when the subsequent will has been deliberately destroyed by the author.

Does anyone on here know for certain?

These solicitors have seen all the documents, and they have been paid to consider this carefully and advise? 

ThisIsWeird

GDB2222 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Wooooo. 

Some solicitors have advised that the current valid - intact - will remains valid, when the subsequent will has been deliberately destroyed by the author.

Does anyone on here know for certain?

These solicitors have seen all the documents, and they have been paid to consider this carefully and advise? 

Nope. But they seemed pretty certain of their claim.

GDB2222

ThisIsWeird said:

GDB2222 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Wooooo. 

Some solicitors have advised that the current valid - intact - will remains valid, when the subsequent will has been deliberately destroyed by the author.

Does anyone on here know for certain?

These solicitors have seen all the documents, and they have been paid to consider this carefully and advise? 

Nope. But they seemed pretty certain of their claim.

You can't rely on them, then. You can't rely on this forum, either. 

So, are you asking just out of interest, or are you proposing to act on this unreliable information in some way? 

ThisIsWeird

GDB2222 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

GDB2222 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Wooooo. 

Some solicitors have advised that the current valid - intact - will remains valid, when the subsequent will has been deliberately destroyed by the author.

Does anyone on here know for certain?

These solicitors have seen all the documents, and they have been paid to consider this carefully and advise? 

Nope. But they seemed pretty certain of their claim.

You can't rely on them, then. You can't rely on this forum, either. 

So, are you asking just out of interest, or are you proposing to act on this unreliable information in some way? 

Of course I'm not going to suggest the person involved acts on forum info. 
But when two separate probate solicitors have since told this person that the original assumed scenario was quite wrong - tearing up a later will does not render an estate intestate if there is a remaining valid will - then I'm back on here to ask if anyone knows the definitive answer with certainty.
That's all. 
This person is not in a financial position to pursue this themselves, so would require a NWNF solicitor.

ThisIsWeird

Thank you.

It seemingly comes down to the testator's intention, and whether this can be demonstrated.

I'll update if there's anything to update