Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



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 [ case ], 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 an agreement to hold distinct shares and amounted to severance.
Answer
Carr v Isard [2007] WTLR 409

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 [ case ], 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 an agreement to hold distinct shares 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 [ case ], 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 an agreement to hold distinct shares and amounted to severance.
Answer
Carr v Isard [2007] WTLR 409
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 slightl

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.