Burton probate solicitors

 

Burton probate solicitors

Burton Probate Solicitors, McIntosh Fleming & Co, bill just £600 (VAT inclusive) to undertake the probate of the deceased’s estate, where the estate is valued at no more than £300,000. Written confirmation is available.

Most Burton solicitors will bill you much more as their bill is based on a hourly rate of £100-£200 and will involve more than 3 hrs work , or is based on a percentage of the value of the deceased’s estate . We believe we are one of the cheapest Burton probate solicitors.

Moreover we uniquely work at evenings and weekends , including home visits. We believe we are one of the easiest Burton probate solicitors to instruct.

You can instruct excellent Burton probate solicitors simply  by e-mailing gary@burton-lawyer.com  or by calling on free-phone (0800) 1712215.

Case study 1

Probate – Grant – Exclusion of words in codicil – Carrying out intention of testatrix – Intention that codicil should revoke particular sub-clause of will – Slip by drafting solicitor in carrying out instructions – Codicial as drafted and executed revoking whole of relevant clause – Whether court required by any rule of evidence or law to hold that testatrix knew and approved of contents of codicil – Absence of power for court to add words to codicil – Omission of words as nearest way to give effect to intentions of testatrix.

Held – The codicil would be admitted to probate with the omission of the numeral 7 in cl 1 (see p 1068 d, post), because—

(i) on the facts as proved no court could conclude that the testatrix knew and approved of the contents of the codicil, unless it was required so to hold by some rule of evidence or law (see p 1061 h, post);

(ii) the fact that a testator read and executed a document raised a prima facie inference that he knew and approved its contents but there was no rule precluding the court from considering all the evidence in order to arrive at the truth, whether fraud was suggested or merely mistake (see & 1064 g, post) (dicta of Sachs J in Crerar v Crerar (1956) unreported applied; Guardhouse v Blackburn [1861–73] All ER Rep 680 (in part) no longer binding);

(iii) although a testator who had delegated to a draftsman the task of drafting an instrument and had executed it as drafted might in some circumstances be bound by a mistake which the draftsman had made, the testator would not be so bound at any rate in a case (such as that before the court) where the mind of the draftsman had never really been applied to the words introduced and never adverted to their significance and effect and there was a mere clerical error on the part of the draftsman, a slip; accordingly, the testatrix was not bound by the mistake of the draftsman which was never brought to her notice (see p 1067 f and g, post);

(iv) although the law was clear that where there was absence of approval (for example, because of mistake) the court had no power to rectify by adding words (see p 1061 j, post), it had power to pronounce against the codicil in its entirety or to exclude part and admit the rest (see p 1067 h, post);

[1970] 1 All ER 1057 at 1058

(v) the testatrix’s intentions would be most nearly effected by excluding the numeral 7 in cl 1 of the codicil which would then read: ‘I revoke Clauses 3 and () of my said Will’. The Chancery Court as the court of construction might then deduce from the will and codicil (as altered) read together that the testatrix’s intention was that the other clause after the words ‘Clauses 3 and ()’ should be 7(iv), or might decide from reading the documents that the gifts in cl 2 of the codicil were intended to be substitutional (see p 1067 h to p 1068 b, post).

Case study 2

Wills – Construction – Legacy settled on daughter and her issue – Gift over if no child of daughter should attain 21 – Codicil excluding issue of daughter by W from any benefit under will – Daughter having no issue other than children by W – Death of daughter leaving children who had attained 21 – Effect of gift over.

Powers – Fraudulent exercise – Special power of appointment among nephews and nieces – Power exercised in favour of a nephew – Agreement by appointee to benefit appointer’s children.

Held – (i) on the true construction of the will and codicil, the proviso to the gift in favour of R and her issue operated if there were no child of R who fulfilled the conditions specified other than a child of R by AW, and, therefore, in the events that had happened, the trust funds did not fall into the testator’s residue, but became subject to the trusts declared by the will to take effect on failure of the trust thereby declared in favour of R’s issue not being issue of her marriage to AW.

(ii) since R had appointed the whole fund to JC in the knowledge that he had already purported to assign to non-objects anything to which he might become entitled under an exercise of the power, the appointment was invalid as a fraud on the power.