The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only have a copy
and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago - the
problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate office will
take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the original was
destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to what would
happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any advice?

TIA
Slatts

The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only have a
copy
and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago - the
problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate office
will
take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the original
was
destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to what
would
happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any advice?


The executor(s) must make careful enquiries at each of the banks with local
branches. If the will cannot be found after exhaustive enquiries the probate
office should be consulted but they are unlikely to accept an unsigned copy
particularly after 25 years when most people would have made a new will in
that time anyway. Of course if all the beneficiaries who would inherit under
the intestacy rules agree arrangements can be made to distribute the estate
according to the copy will.

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:
The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only
have a copy
and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago -
the problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate
office will
take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the
original was
destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to
what would
happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any
advice?


The executor(s) must make careful enquiries at each of the banks with
local branches. If the will cannot be found after exhaustive
enquiries the probate office should be consulted but they are
unlikely to accept an unsigned copy particularly after 25 years when
most people would have made a new will in that time anyway. Of course
if all the beneficiaries who would inherit under the intestacy rules
agree arrangements can be made to distribute the estate according to
the copy will.

Peter Crosland

The copy shows all the signatures.

Slatts

Peter Crosland wrote:
The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only have a
copy and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago -
the problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate office
will take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the original
was destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to what
would happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any advice?

The executor(s) must make careful enquiries at each of the banks with local
branches. If the will cannot be found after exhaustive enquiries the probate
office should be consulted but they are unlikely to accept an unsigned copy
particularly after 25 years when most people would have made a new will in
that time anyway. Of course if all the beneficiaries who would inherit under
the intestacy rules agree arrangements can be made to distribute the estate
according to the copy will.

The OP doesn't actually say whether the copy is signed. Would there be
any difference in your answer if the copy were a photocopy of the signed
will?

--
David

On Aug 26, 10:50 am, "Peter Crosland" wrote:
The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only have a
copy
and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago - the
problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate office
will
take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the original
was
destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to what
would
happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any advice?

The executor(s) must make careful enquiries at each of the banks with local
branches. If the will cannot be found after exhaustive enquiries the probate
office should be consulted but they are unlikely to accept an unsigned copy
particularly after 25 years when most people would have made a new will in
that time anyway. Of course if all the beneficiaries who would inherit under
the intestacy rules agree arrangements can be made to distribute the estate
according to the copy will.

What if the "copy" is a photocopy of the original will (with
signatures)? Would that be more convincing? (Twenty five years would
take us back to 1983 when copies with carbon paper were on their way
out, and photocopies were pretty common - but either is possible.)

I don't think its true that "most people" would have made a new will
after 25 years. My partner and I haven't changed our wills for at
least twelve years, and there is only one thing that is likely to
cause us to change them for the rest of our lives (we might marry).
My mother may well not have changed hers for thirty years.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:50:09 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only have a
copy
and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago - the
problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate office
will
take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the original
was
destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to what
would
happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any advice?


The executor(s) must make careful enquiries at each of the banks with local
branches. If the will cannot be found after exhaustive enquiries the probate
office should be consulted but they are unlikely to accept an unsigned copy
particularly after 25 years when most people would have made a new will in
that time anyway.

I don't think that is quite right. If the Will was properly executed
in the first place, and it seems the solicitors are in a position to
give evidence that it was, then it is valid, and its contents can be
proved from secondary evidence. It would, of course, cease to be valid
if revoked, either by destruction or by the making of a subsequent
Will which revokes it explicitly, but that cannot simply be assumed
because "most people" would have done it - there must be evidence.

There is a famous 19th century case in which a Will simply
disappeared, and no-one had any idea what had become of it. The
testator had had the habit of regularly reading it to his daughter,
who was one of the benficiaries, and it was admitted to probate on the
basis of her memory of its contents. There are many cases in which
solicitors' office copies have been admitted when the signed original
could not be found.

Of course if all the beneficiaries who would inherit under
the intestacy rules agree arrangements can be made to distribute the estate
according to the copy will.

Or in any other way agreed with the prospective benficiaries. If no
agreement can be reached, the nominated executor will have to apply to
the court, and those entitled on intestacy can oppose the application
(or vice versa). This gets you into the area of "contentious
business", with both sides represented by counsel, which comes
expensive. Whether it would be worth it obviously depends on the size
of the estate.

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

The original of a will of has gone missing. The solicitors only have a
copy
and say the original was put in the deceased's bank 25 years ago - the
problem is we don't know which bank.

I have been offered two opposing opinions. One says the probate office
will
take the position that the will stands (after a lengthy verification
process).
The other position is that the probate office could assume the original
was
destroyed to revoke it, though there is no evidence of that.

The problem is the will divides everything totally differently to what
would
happen if it was intestate.
Has any here been involved with this kind of situation and any advice?


The executor(s) must make careful enquiries at each of the banks with
local
branches. If the will cannot be found after exhaustive enquiries the
probate
office should be consulted but they are unlikely to accept an unsigned
copy
particularly after 25 years when most people would have made a new will in
that time anyway.

I don't think that is quite right. If the Will was properly executed
in the first place, and it seems the solicitors are in a position to
give evidence that it was, then it is valid, and its contents can be
proved from secondary evidence. It would, of course, cease to be valid
if revoked, either by destruction or by the making of a subsequent
Will which revokes it explicitly, but that cannot simply be assumed
because "most people" would have done it - there must be evidence.

There is a famous 19th century case in which a Will simply
disappeared, and no-one had any idea what had become of it. The
testator had had the habit of regularly reading it to his daughter,
who was one of the benficiaries, and it was admitted to probate on the
basis of her memory of its contents. There are many cases in which
solicitors' office copies have been admitted when the signed original
could not be found.

Whilst I agree it can happen the length of time since the will was drawn up
makes it a distinct possibility that there is a later will. Proving that
there is not another is going to be time consuming and probably costly. Even
if there are is a signed copy it is not an easy process. It acts as a
warning to people that they not only need to make a will but also make sure
the location is known to more than on person.


Of course if all the beneficiaries who would inherit under
the intestacy rules agree arrangements can be made to distribute the
estate
according to the copy will.

Or in any other way agreed with the prospective benficiaries. If no
agreement can be reached, the nominated executor will have to apply to
the court, and those entitled on intestacy can oppose the application
(or vice versa). This gets you into the area of "contentious
business", with both sides represented by counsel, which comes
expensive. Whether it would be worth it obviously depends on the size
of the estate.

Very true and sadly potential beneficiaries will often argue of small
amounts to the detriment of all of them.

Peter Crosland

On Aug 26, 2:45 pm, "Anthony R. Gold" wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:40:05 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:50:06 +0100, Martin Bonner
wrote:

I don't think its true that "most people" would have made a new will
after 25 years. My partner and I haven't changed our wills for at
least twelve years, and there is only one thing that is likely to
cause us to change them for the rest of our lives (we might marry).

If you do marry then you really must make a new Will, even if identical to
what you have now, because the existing one will have become revoked.

Whoops, I now see I have repeated exactly what you had written. Sorry.

It's something that is /much/ better said twice than not at all! I
suspect that an increasing number of people are going to die intestate
because of this in future.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:25:09 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Don Aitken wrote

I don't think that is quite right. If the Will was properly executed
in the first place, and it seems the solicitors are in a position to
give evidence that it was, then it is valid, and its contents can be
proved from secondary evidence. It would, of course, cease to be valid
if revoked, either by destruction or by the making of a subsequent
Will which revokes it explicitly, but that cannot simply be assumed
because "most people" would have done it - there must be evidence.

There is a famous 19th century case in which a Will simply
disappeared, and no-one had any idea what had become of it. The
testator had had the habit of regularly reading it to his daughter,
who was one of the benficiaries, and it was admitted to probate on the
basis of her memory of its contents. There are many cases in which
solicitors' office copies have been admitted when the signed original
could not be found.

Whilst I agree it can happen the length of time since the will was drawn up
makes it a distinct possibility that there is a later will. Proving that
there is not another is going to be time consuming and probably costly.

I think this is where we disgree. As I understand it, once this Will
is shown to have been properly executed, it must be admitted to
probate, unless it is proved to have been revoked. That it *might*
have been revoked, or that it is not proved *not* to have been
revoked, would not be enough. Indeed, I can't think of any possible
way of *proving* that a Will has not been revoked.

Even if there are is a signed copy it is not an easy process. It acts as a
warning to people that they not only need to make a will but also make sure
the location is known to more than on person.

No argument about that.

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

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:40:05 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:50:06 +0100, Martin Bonner
wrote:

I don't think its true that "most people" would have made a new will
after 25 years. My partner and I haven't changed our wills for at
least twelve years, and there is only one thing that is likely to
cause us to change them for the rest of our lives (we might marry).

If you do marry then you really must make a new Will, even if identical to
what you have now, because the existing one will have become revoked.

I'd understood that a will that states that it's written in
anticipation of marriage to a named individual survives marriage to
that person.

Is that (still) correct?

Mike.