Two cases illustrate how the courts have interpreted the parties’ conduct when considering the content of parties’ wills. In the case of Carr v Isard [2007] WTLR 409, a mother and father each executed a will. In her will, the mother directed that upon her death her husband should receive a life interest in her ‘share’. The husband’s will was slightly different; although he also gave a life interest to his wife on his death, this was an interest in the residue of the whole. Following their eventual deaths, the court, relying on Burgess v Rawnsley, held that the differences within the wills did not support the suggestion of a common intention to sever. In particular, the father’s proposed disposition was not dependent on there being a tenancy in common.
This case can be contrasted against Re Woolnough (Deceased) [2002] WLTR 595. This time a brother and sister each executed wills giving each other life interests in their share of the property on their deaths. In this case it was held that both wills contained clear instructions that life interests in a ‘share’ be given, which was inconsistent with a joint tenancy. This demonstrated [...]and amounted to severance.
Answer
an agreement to hold distinct shares
Tags
#co-ownership #land #law
Question
Two cases illustrate how the courts have interpreted the parties’ conduct when considering the content of parties’ wills. In the case of Carr v Isard [2007] WTLR 409, a mother and father each executed a will. In her will, the mother directed that upon her death her husband should receive a life interest in her ‘share’. The husband’s will was slightly different; although he also gave a life interest to his wife on his death, this was an interest in the residue of the whole. Following their eventual deaths, the court, relying on Burgess v Rawnsley, held that the differences within the wills did not support the suggestion of a common intention to sever. In particular, the father’s proposed disposition was not dependent on there being a tenancy in common.
This case can be contrasted against Re Woolnough (Deceased) [2002] WLTR 595. This time a brother and sister each executed wills giving each other life interests in their share of the property on their deaths. In this case it was held that both wills contained clear instructions that life interests in a ‘share’ be given, which was inconsistent with a joint tenancy. This demonstrated [...]and amounted to severance.
Answer
?
Tags
#co-ownership #land #law
Question
Two cases illustrate how the courts have interpreted the parties’ conduct when considering the content of parties’ wills. In the case of Carr v Isard [2007] WTLR 409, a mother and father each executed a will. In her will, the mother directed that upon her death her husband should receive a life interest in her ‘share’. The husband’s will was slightly different; although he also gave a life interest to his wife on his death, this was an interest in the residue of the whole. Following their eventual deaths, the court, relying on Burgess v Rawnsley, held that the differences within the wills did not support the suggestion of a common intention to sever. In particular, the father’s proposed disposition was not dependent on there being a tenancy in common.
This case can be contrasted against Re Woolnough (Deceased) [2002] WLTR 595. This time a brother and sister each executed wills giving each other life interests in their share of the property on their deaths. In this case it was held that both wills contained clear instructions that life interests in a ‘share’ be given, which was inconsistent with a joint tenancy. This demonstrated [...]and amounted to severance.
Answer
an agreement to hold distinct shares
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it her life interests in their share of the property on their deaths. In this case it was held that both wills contained clear instructions that life interests in a ‘share’ be given, which was inconsistent with a joint tenancy. This demonstrated <span>an agreement to hold distinct shares and amounted to severance.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.