The husband owned the family home. In a home-made will, he left it ‘in trust for’ his wife. She died leaving differing proportions to each child. On her death the children sought a declaration from the court as to their respective interests.
Held: The gift was left in trust for the wife under a life interest only, and the children now took equal shares from the father’s estate. The words ‘in trust’ did not of themselves create only a life interest: ‘The mere fact that the testator has used the words ‘in trust’ is not in itself inconsistent with an intention on his part that his wife should be the absolute beneficial owner.’ S22 applied where there was some ambiguity. Here there was additional evidence, not part of the will, that the testator envisaged the possible sale of the house. That evidence could be listened to. This suggested a life interest. It was not helpful to try to define what degree of clarity might be required of any contrary intention to be shown under s22. Parliament intended only that if there had been an absoute gift, it should not be reduced by later unclear words.
Judges:
Hart J
Citations:
Times 25-Jan-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 1212
Statutes:
Administration of Estates Act 1925 22
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gibbs v Harding and others ChD 12-Jan-2007
The testatrix left a will anticipating making another. The court was asked whether a clause leaving her estate to ‘be taken over by the Diocese of Westminster to hold in trust for the Black community of Hackney’ was valid.
Held: The gift was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.238877