On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:45:06 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

David J wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:09 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

snip

If the will appears to leave something to either of the witnesses,
that particular bequest is treated as non-existant, but the rest of
the will remains valid.

(Yes, I know this is nit-picking, but you can't pick at nits in UKLM
where can you?)

Noted. You forgot to turn pedant mode on and off!

Peter Crosland

Thanks to everybody for both your answers to my original question, and
for all the subsequent information. I now am confident enough to
prepare my own uncomplicated Will on my PC and have it witnessed by
two friends, who are not beneficiaries.

That opens a quite new potential can of worms David! DIY wills often end up
benefiting the legal profession because people use words and phrases that
don't mean what they think they do. For the sake of a couple of hundred
pounds go and get it done by a solicitor. Don't use a will writer. Regard
the fee as insurance for your heirs.

Peter Crosland



I disagree - if your circumstances and needs are straight forward then
you can do it yourself for ten quid:
www.lawpack.co.uk

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:25:06 +0000, judith wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:45:06 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

David J wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:05:09 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

snip

If the will appears to leave something to either of the witnesses,
that particular bequest is treated as non-existant, but the rest of
the will remains valid.

(Yes, I know this is nit-picking, but you can't pick at nits in UKLM
where can you?)

Noted. You forgot to turn pedant mode on and off!

Peter Crosland

Thanks to everybody for both your answers to my original question, and
for all the subsequent information. I now am confident enough to
prepare my own uncomplicated Will on my PC and have it witnessed by
two friends, who are not beneficiaries.

That opens a quite new potential can of worms David! DIY wills often end up
benefiting the legal profession because people use words and phrases that
don't mean what they think they do. For the sake of a couple of hundred
pounds go and get it done by a solicitor. Don't use a will writer. Regard
the fee as insurance for your heirs.


I disagree - if your circumstances and needs are straight forward then
you can do it yourself for ten quid:
www.lawpack.co.uk

Or, indeed, for nothing.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Jan 28, 6:55*pm, Percy Picacity wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote in
news:e51a1c06-ede5-41d4-bcc4-

m:





On Jan 28, 11:45 am, "Peter Crosland" wrote:
David J wrote:
My question is: Does a Will have to be hand-written by the
Testator?
No.
Or can it be typed/word-processed. *All the samples I have seen
show the text in hand script.
The testator has to sign it in the presence of two witnesses who
may not be beneficiaries of the will.

Correction "two witnesses who /will/ not be beneficiaries of the
will".

If the will appears to leave something to either of the witnesses,
that particular bequest is treated as non-existant, but the rest
of the will remains valid.

(Yes, I know this is nit-picking, but you can't pick at nits in
UKLM where can you?)

Incorrect nit picking. *"May" is used in the sense of permission
rather than probability.

....but it was a different nit:

Peter wrote (and meant) "may", if he had meant "might" he would surely
have written it. But that was not the nit that was picked. What the
original nit picker tells us is that if a witness appears to be a
beneficiary of the will that does not invalidate the will. It's just
that the bequest to the witness fails.

Robert

RobertL wrote in
news:c444e62f-e442-4ddf-8373-

m:

On Jan 28, 6:55*pm, Percy Picacity wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote in
news:e51a1c06-ede5-41d4-bcc4-

m:





On Jan 28, 11:45 am, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:
David J wrote:
My question is: Does a Will have to be hand-written by the
Testator?
No.
Or can it be typed/word-processed. *All the samples I have
seen show the text in hand script.
The testator has to sign it in the presence of two witnesses
who may not be beneficiaries of the will.

Correction "two witnesses who /will/ not be beneficiaries of
the will".

If the will appears to leave something to either of the
witnesses, that particular bequest is treated as non-existant,
but the rest of the will remains valid.

(Yes, I know this is nit-picking, but you can't pick at nits in
UKLM where can you?)

Incorrect nit picking. *"May" is used in the sense of permission
rather than probability.

....but it was a different nit:

Peter wrote (and meant) "may", if he had meant "might" he would
surely have written it. But that was not the nit that was picked.
What the original nit picker tells us is that if a witness
appears to be a beneficiary of the will that does not invalidate
the will. It's just that the bequest to the witness fails.

Oh, thanks. I didn't pick up the possibility that the original
statement that witnesses could not be witnesses might be
misinterpreted to mean that beneficiaries could not be valid
witnesses! I stand corrected.



--
Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote in
:

RobertL wrote in
news:c444e62f-e442-4ddf-8373-


What the original nit picker tells us is that if a witness
appears to be a beneficiary of the will that does not invalidate
the will. It's just that the bequest to the witness fails.

Oh, thanks. I didn't pick up the possibility that the original
statement that witnesses could not be witnesses might be
misinterpreted to mean that beneficiaries could not be valid
witnesses! I stand corrected.

Or try:

I didn't pick up the possibility that the original statement that
witnesses could not be beneficiaries might be misinterpreted to mean
that beneficiaries could not be valid witnesses!


--
Percy Picacity