The case of the partially torn Will - was it sufficient to constitute revocation?

This caused for the estate to pass to her sister, Josephine.

The court considered whether the act of tearing the will was sufficient to amount to revocation in accordance with section 20 of the Wills Act 1837. If the court found that she lacked capacity or had not done enough to revoke the will, then her estate would pass to her distant cousins, the Crews.

Case Overview

The dispute revolved around the estate of Carry Keats, who was 92 when she passed away in February 2022, leaving behind an estate valued at approximately £800,000. Over the years, Ms. Keats had executed six wills, the latest of which was executed in 2021 and appointed her cousins Angela and David Crew (the Crews) as executors and primary beneficiaries.

However, in the summer of 2021 Ms Keats had a major falling out with the Crews and she instructed her solicitors in November 2021 that she wished to change her Will.

In January 2022, Ms Keats was hospitalised and her solicitor, Ms Webb, visited her in the hospital to take her will instructions. Ms Webb explained the provisions of her 2021 Will which appointed the Crews as executors and beneficiaries. Ms Keats was adamant that she did not want this to happen. Ms Webb explained that she could tear up the existing original will to signify its revocation and, if she did so, her sister Josephine would be her sole beneficiary under intestacy. Ms. Keats attempted to destroy the will but only managed to tear three quarters of it due to her frailty. Ms Webb helped her to complete the tearing by putting her hands over hers.

Ms Webb made a detailed attendance note of their meeting and her opinion was that Ms Keats had testamentary capacity. She was unable to take instructions for a new Will because Ms Keats became very drowsy and confused due to her medication.

In his judgment the judge commented that "Behind this simple act of tearing is enmity in the wider family involving allegations of undue influence, greed and bullying, with an unseemly scrabble for the assets of the deceased in the last couple of years of her life and after her death."

Legal Issues

The central issues in the case were whether the partial destruction of the 2021 Will constituted a valid revocation under Section 20 of the Wills Act 1837 and whether Ms Keats had testamentary capacity.

The court decided that the partial destruction of the Will, coupled with the contemporaneous statements made by Ms. Keats to her solicitor, demonstrated a clear intention to revoke the 2021 Will. The detailed attendance notes of Ms Webb played a crucial role in substantiating this intention. The court placed significant weight on Ms Webb's experience, her professional observations, her longstanding relationship with Ms. Keats and the detailed records she maintained of their interactions.

While hospital staff had noted moments of confusion in Ms. Keats due to medication, the court decided that she had testamentary capacity during her meeting with Ms Webb and that she had the necessary intention to revoke her 2021 Will. The court also acknowledged that Ms. Keats' inability to execute a new Will before her death did not negate her intent to revoke the previous one.

As a result, the court held that the 2021 will was effectively revoked, and Ms. Keats died intestate which meant that her sister Josephine inherited her estate and not the Crews who were the claimants.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Capacity and Intention: The case emphasises the importance of contemporaneous and detailed records in probate disputes. The solicitor’s meticulous attendance notes were instrumental in establishing both the act of revocation and Ms. Keats’ testamentary intentions and capacity at the moment she tore the Will.

2. Revocation by Destruction: This case clarifies the threshold for revocation through destruction. Physical destruction need not be complete or performed solely by the testator, as long as the intention to revoke is unequivocal and corroborated by reliable evidence.

Conclusion

The decision in Crew v Oakley highlights the importance of keeping your Will up to date. Sadly, Ms Keats was terminally ill and was therefore not able to give instructions for a new Will before she passed away. Had she done so before she became ill years of litigation, stress and expense could have been avoided.

Please contact Leila Goodarzi on 07909 682 364 if you wish to discuss reviewing and updating your will and Fiona Lawrence on 07909 901 370 if you have concerns about the way in which a Will has been drafted.