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 Will – Gift – Personal chattels – Stamp and coin collections – Whether ‘personal effects’ included collections – Whether prima facie meaning of phrase displaced. Will – Gift – Personal chattels – Beneficiaries to select from personal chattels – Storage and insurance of chattels – Whether costs to be borne by beneficiaries or residue – Whether costs to be borne by income or capital of residue. The testator by cl 2(6) of his will dated 5 July 1965 bequeathed to the first defendant, his sister, inter alia: ‘(a) such champagne as shall be at my lodgings (b) such articles of furniture and personal effects as she shall select from among those at my lodgings and not already disposed of by this my Will’, with a direction that she ‘be allowed to make her selection before any other person similarly authorised under the provisions of this my Will … ‘ By cl 2(7) of the will the second defendant was bequeathed in similar terms ‘such articles of furniture and personal effects as she shall select … and not already disposed of by this my Will … ‘, and by cl 2(8) and (9) the third and fourth defendants respectively were bequeathed in similar terms ‘such single item of furniture or personal effects as she shall select … and not already disposed of … ‘ By cll 5 and 6 the testator gave his residuary estate on trust for named beneficiaries. At the date of his death, 18 September 1968, the testator owned and kept at his lodgings a stamp collection which was his main hobby, insured for £15,000 and a coin collection. He also kept there a motor car for his own personal use. The estate after payment of duty was some £25,000, the furniture and personal effects being valued at about £3,000, the stamp and coin collection at £5,800 and £150 respectively and the car at £500 to £600. On a summons to determine whether the stamp and coin collection and the car should be treated as personal effects under cl 2 of the will and how the burden of outgoings in respect of storage and insurance of the above items should be borne, Held – (i) There were no sufficient indications in the will read as a whole to displace the prima facie meaning of ‘personal effects’ which included the stamp and coin collections and the motor car (see p 287 c post). Re Reynold’s Will Trusts  3 All ER 686 followed. (ii) As the title of the beneficiaries under cl 2 stemmed form the act of selection, the profits and expenses prior to the time of selection fell on the income arising from the residue and not on the beneficiary making the selection (see p 288 g, post). Case study 2 Will – Gift – Donee – Person who on death of present Earl should succeed to the earldom – Heir presumptive had no interest in property so given. A testator bequeathed income of his residuary estate (viz, income accruing after the death of his widow and during the lifetime of the present Earl of Midleton) to the person who on the death of the present Earl should succeed to the earldom and attain the age of twenty-one years or, if there were no such person, to the person who should succeed to the viscountcy and attain that age. Held – No real distinction lay between a gift to the heir of a living person and a gift to the person who on the death of a living person should succeed to his title; accordingly the income passed as on intestacy of the testator (see p 838, letter i, to p 839, letter a, post). Case study 3 Trust and trustee – Variation of trusts by the court – ‘Benefit’ – Not restricted to financial, educational and social benefit – Forfeiture clause – Forfeiture on practising Roman Catholic faith – Variation of Trusts Act 1958, s 1(1). Trust and trustee – Variation of trusts by the Court – Fair and proper – Defeat of testator’s intentions not conclusive that arrangement not fair and proper. The testator R who died in January 1968 made provision under his will and codicil for his two daughters D and M and their children by means of a residuary trust fund. The children of R’s nephew and of R’s niece were beneficiaries under an ultimate default trust. The trust fund was of approximately £62,000 and was held in two unequal shares, five-eighths as to D and three-eighths as to M. D and M enjoyed the income of their respective shares during their individual lives. Thereafter the capital and income was held on trust for their children. By a forfeiture clause any of R’s grandchildren ‘practising Roman Catholicism’ at or after their mother’s death (depending on their age at that time) forfeited their share. D’s children had a real and substantial chance of taking the whole of M’s children’s share under the forfeiture provisions. The parties sought the court’s assistance under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 to vary the terms of the residuary and default trusts by deleting the forfeiture clause, and by advancing the interests of the children of D and M in two sums of approximately £10,000 set aside equally out of D’s share and M’s share. In addition the sum of £1,000 was provided equally by D and M for the benefit of the children of R’s nephew and niece who were beneficiaries under the default trust. On the question whether the proposed arrangement was for the ‘benefit’ of the infant children and unborn children and whether the arrangement was a fair and proper one. Held – (i) A broad view should be taken of what is meant by ‘benefit’ in s 1(1)a of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, and the interpretation of the word should not be restricted merely to financial, educational and social benefit but benefit of any other kind (see p 559 d and e, post). a Section 1(1), so far as material, is set out at p 558 c and d, post Dictum of Lord Denning MR in Re Western’s Settlements  3 All ER at 342 explained. (ii) A court may approve an arrangement for a variation of a trust which defeats the intention of the testator provided that the arrangement is for the benefit of the beneficiaries and is a fair and proper one to make (see p 559 h and j, post).