Loughborough probate solicitors Loughborough probate solicitors Loughborough probate solicitors, McIntosh Fleming & Co, provide one of the cheapest probate services in the East Midlands. If the estate is under £300,000 our fixed fee is just £600 including VAT. What makes us different from other Loughborough probate solicitors? Most Loughborough probate solicitors charge by the hour or as a percentage of the value of the estate but we are different – we simply charge a fixed fee so that you do not end up with a big bill. If you want to take advantage of our cheap probate fixed fee, do not wait – get in touch with us by telephoning free-phone 0800 or by e-mailing email@example.com and we will then confirm the quote in writing. Case study 1 WILLS – REVIVAL – CODICIL REVIVING REVOKED WILL – TESTATRIX EXECUTING SECOND WILL REVOKING EARLIER WILL AND CODICIL – TESTATRIX SUBSEQUENTLY EXECUTING CODICIL EXPRESSLY STATED TO BE CODICILTO FIRST WILL – WHETHER SECOND CODICIL REVIVING FIRST WILL AND CODICIL – WILLS ACT 1837, S 22 On 12 August 1999, the testatrix executed a will, cl 3.1 of which provided for a tax-free pecuniary legacy of £100,000 to her daughter, the first defendant. The will further provided for a legacy of £25,000 to the second defendant, the fourth to seventh defendants receiving the residuary estate. By a codicil dated 14 January 2000, the will was varied so as to provide for a further legacy of £10,000 to the third defendant. On 16 August, the testatrix made a second will which, by its express terms, revoked the first will and codicil. It contained the provisions of the first will as varied by the codicil, save that it left no legacy to the first defendant. On 25 November 2004, the testatrix executed a second codicil which was expressly stated to be a codicil to the 1991 will, varying cl 3.1 thereof by substituting the first defendant’s legacy of £100,000 with one of £250,000. The codicil had been prepared by the testatrix’s solicitors following a meeting with her at which no mention had been made of the second will. Subsequent to the testarix’s death, the claimant sought pronouncement in solemn form in favour of the 1991 will and the first codicil. The claimant submitted that the effect of the second codicil had been to revive the first will in accordance with s 22 of the Wills Act 1837. Held – The application would be allowed. The express reference to the second codicil being to the 1991 will, coupled with the terms of that codicil, varying cl 3.1 of the 1991 will, constituted a clear expression of the testatrix’s intention that the first will, and therefore necessarily the first codicil, were to be revived and the second will revoked. Case study 2 WILLS – REVOCATION, REVIVAL AND REPUBLICATION – REVIVAL – MODES OF REVIVAL – INTENTION TO REVIVE – REFERENCE TO WILL OR CODICIL – BY DATE – MISTAKE IN REFERENCE — EFFECT OF A executed a will and codicil, which had been prepared by her solicitor, bearing date February 14, 1856. On November 10, 1858 she copied the will, omitting several legacies, and executed the copy and a codicil of the same tenor as the previous one. In 1861 she instructed her solicitor to prepare a further codicil, and he, not knowing that the will and codicil of 1858 had been made, drew up a codicil, which purported to be a codicil to deceased’s ‘last will and testament, bearing date February 14, 1856,’ and deceased duly executed it. After her death, the will and codicil of November 1858, and the codicil of 1861 were found together, and in another place the will andcodicil of February 1856, from which deceased’s signature had been torn off. The court being satisfied that deceased intended the last codicil to be a codicil to the will of 1858, held that the words ‘bearing date February 14, 1856,’ as they were merely words of description, might be disregarded, upon the principle ‘falsa demonstratio non nocet si de corpore constat,’ and granted probate of the will and codicil of November 10, 1858, and of thecodicil of 1861. Case study 3 WILLS – REVOCATION – CONDITIONAL REVOCATION – CODICIL VARYING DISPOSITION IN WILL – BENEFICIARY WITNESS TO CODICIL – WHETHER IMPLIED REVOCATION OF WILL CONDITIONAL ON VALIDITY OF CODICIL –WILLS ACT 1837, S 15 The claimant and the first defendant were the executors of the will and codicil of the deceased, G. The first defendant was also one of the witnesses to the codicil. Both the will and the codicil were admitted to probate. The will divided the residue of G’s net estate into 50 equal shares, seven of which were bequeathed to the defendant and his wife, the third defendant. The codicil was made days before G’s death and varied the bequest made in his will in favour of the defendants by increasing their shares to 10 of the 50 equal shares. The claimant applied to the court for a declaration that the codicil impliedly revoked the will insofar as it contained provisions inconsistent with it, and was therefore intended to govern the eventual share of residue, but the gift of residue to the defendants of one-fifth of the net residuary estate failed under s 15 of the Wills Act 1837 because the first defendant was one of the witnesses to the codicil. The defendants contended that although the codicil was void, the gift to them under the will was valid because it was G’s intention to benefit them, and the revocation of the earlier gift was conditional on the later gift being valid. Held – Applying established principles, there was no express revocation of the original gift to the defendants identifiable in the codicil. Furthermore, an implied revocation would only be effective when the later substituted gift took effect in place of the first gift. However since the codicil was void under s 15 of the 1837 Act that implied revocation had no effect. Accordingly, the disposition in favour of the defendants in the codicil was void, but the original gift in the will was not impliedly revoked.