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 firstname.lastname@example.org and we will then confirm the quote in writing. Case study 1 Wills – Construction – Investment clause – Power of beneficiary to direct investments whether authorised or not – Whether beneficiary may direct trustees to purchase shares from himself. By her will and codicil thereto the testatrix directed the sale and conversion of the residue of her real and personal estate, and provided that a sum of £2,000 and a share in the residue, hereafter called the trust fund, should be held upon trust for ESH for life, the trustees to invest the capital of the trust fund in such investments as ESH should from time to time direct whether they were authorised investments or not. The trustees took out a summons to determine the extent of the power to direct the investments, and, in particular, whether, if ESH so directed, they were to purchase shares from ESH as vendor; and whether the power only applied to capital moneys in hand or extended to the realisation of sufficient investments then held in order to provide the purchase money:— Held – (i) on the true construction of the direction, the trustees were required, if practicable, to consult ESH both as to investments and sales, and, if he refused or failed to act, they were free to act themselves. (ii) Provided he acted in good faith, ESH might direct the purchase of shares from himself, and his power to direct was not confined to the investment of uninvested funds in the trustees’ hands but extended to the conversion of existing investments of the trust funds. The trustees must be satisfied that a reasonable and proper price was paid for the shares. Case study 2 Administration of estates – Estate duty – Direction for payment in testator’s will – Direction to pay ‘funeral and testamentary expenses … and all death duties’ out of residue – Estate consisting of personalty only – Duty payable on pecuniary gifts inter vivos prior to death – Duty payable on nomination in respect of post office savings bank account – Nomination taking effect on testator’s death – Reference to estate duty otiose unless referring to gifts outside ambit of will – Application outside the ambit of will limited to gift taking effect on testator’s death – Duty on inter vivos gifts to be borne by donees – Duty on nomination payable out of estate. By her will made in 1963, the testatrix gave, devised and bequeathed all her real and personal estate to her trustee, the fourth defendant, on trust to sell the same and out of the proceeds ‘pay my funeral and testamentary expenses and debts and all death duties’ and hold the net residue thereof on trust as to one-fifth share to each of the first three defendants, and, in the event which happened, the fourth defendant, and the fifth share to the fifth defendant for life and over. In 1964 she made a nomination of the moneys in her post office savings bank account in favour of the fourth defendant. During 1967 she made gifts of £3,208 each to the first five defendants. By a second codicil in June 1968 she appointed the plaintiffs’ predecessors in title joint executors and trustees with the fourth defendant. She died in October 1968. Probate of her will and codicils was granted to the executors in January 1969. The post office savings bank nomination took effect on her death, the amount being £5,026. The net value of her estate, all of which was personalty, was £94,500. On the question whether, by reason of the reference in the will to payment of estate duty, the duty payable on the testatrix’s death in respect of the five pecuniary gifts, and the nomination of the moneys in the post office savings bank account in favour of the fourth defendant, should be borne by the testatrix’s estate or by the first five defendants and the fourth defendant respectively, Held – Since the gifts in the will were all of personalty the reference to estate duty was otiose unless it applied to gifts made outside the ambit of the will; if it were not to be treated as otiose it should be given as limited an application to dispositions outside the will as avoided the reference being otiose; the post office savings bank nomination took effect on the testatrix’s death whereas the inter vivos gifts took effect before her death; it was therefore possible to give the direction to ‘pay … all death duties’ a meaning which was not otiose but was limited to dispositions becoming effective on her death; accordingly the estate duty payable in respect of the inter vivos gifts was to be borne by the first five defendants whereas the duty payable in respect of the money in the post office savings bank account should be paid out of the estate in the due course of administration (see p 224 e to h, post). Case study 3 Administration of Estates – Real estate – Liability for payment of legacies – Intention of testatrix – Gifts by will of pecuniary legacies and their gift to daughter of real estate and residue of personal estate (after “payment thereout” of debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, and death and legacy duties) – Substituted gift, by codicil, to daughter’s sons in event of daughter predeceasing testatrix – Real and personal estate treated in codicil as single entity – Daughter surviving testatrix – Administration of Estates Act, 1925 (c 23), s 34(3), sched I, Part II, para 2. By her will, dated 31 May 1949, the testatrix appointed executors and trustees, and, after making bequests of specific articles and giving a number of pecuniary legacies, all free of duty, she declared: “I devise all my real estate and bequeath the residue of my personal estate unto my trustees upon trust (after payment thereout of my just debts funeral and testamentary expenses death and legacy duties) for my daughter … “ By a codicil, dated 30 November 1951, the testatrix declared that, in the event of the daughter predeceasing her, “I devise my … real estate and bequeath the residue of my personal estate unto my trustees” on trust for sale and conversion “and to stand possessed of the net proceeds of such sale calling in and conversion and of my ready money in trust after payment thereout of my just debts funeral and testamentary expenses death and legacy duties to divide the residue thereof equally between” the daughter’s two sons. The testatrix died on 16 July 1952. The daughter survived her. After the funeral expenses and debts had been paid and the specific legacies handed over, the assets, apart from the real estate, were insufficient to pay the pecuniary legacies. The daughter claimed that the legacies were payable only out of the personal estate and that the real estate passed to her intact. Held – By the codicil the testatrix showed that she regarded her estate as a single indivisible entity, and, therefore, she could not have intended in the will to keep the real estate as a separate item from the personalty; accordingly, in considering the payment of the pecuniary legacies she did not contemplate any differentiation between the realty and the personalty, nor did she contemplate that the real estate should go intact to the daughter; and, therefore, the pecuniary legacies were payable out of the whole estate, both real and personal.