Legal Battles and Contentious Probate in the Case of Torn Wills on the Deathbed

The case of Crew & Anor v Oakley & Ors revolves around a dramatic dispute over the estate of 92-year-old Carry Keats, who, in the final days of her life, tore up her will. This act sparked an £800,000 legal battle between her five cousins and her younger sister, Josephine Oakley. At the heart of the case is the interpretation of the Wills Act 1837, particularly regarding the revocation of a will. Specifically, the question is whether Keats’ action of tearing up her will constituted a valid revocation and whether she had given sufficient authorisation for her solicitor to complete the destruction.

In this blog, we explore the legal implications of this case, its reflection of current probate law, and its significance for future estate planning.

What does the law say about revoking a will?

Under Section 20 of the Wills Act 1837, a will can be revoked by “burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator, or by some person in their presence and by their direction, with the intention of revoking it.”

For a will to be effectively revoked, three key conditions must be met:

1. Destruction: The will must be physically destroyed (e.g., burned, torn, etc.).
2. Instruction: The destruction must be carried out either by the testator or by someone instructed by the testator, in their presence.
3. Intention: There must be clear intent by the testator to revoke the will.

However, simply tearing up a will does not automatically invalidate it unless these conditions are satisfied. The law protects against hasty decisions made during moments of distress or diminished capacity.

In Mrs. Keats’ case, the critical components of revocation were destruction, instruction, and intention.

The case of Carry Keats: what happened?

The legal dispute began when Carry Keats, in the final weeks of her life, chose to change the distribution of her estate. At that point, her existing will left most of her assets to her cousins. However, following a disagreement over her medical care—especially their proposal to transfer her to a nursing home—Keats made the decision to exclude her cousins from inheriting.

While hospitalised, Keats arranged for her long-time solicitor, Haffwen Webb, to visit and assist with drafting a new will. Webb informed her that destroying the existing will would invalidate it, leaving her entire estate to pass to her sister, Josephine, under intestacy laws. Due to her weakened condition, Keats was only able to partially tear up the will. She then instructed Webb to complete the task, which Webb did in her presence. Afterward, Webb advised Keats that the destruction of the will would result in Josephine inheriting her estate, and she appeared at peace with this.

Keats passed away two weeks later, without executing a new will. Her cousins subsequently contested the validity of the destruction, claiming she lacked the mental capacity to revoke the will due to her medical condition. They also argued that, had she been of sound mind, she would not have wanted her sister to inherit, citing past conflicts between them.

The legal challenges and court’s interpretation

The High Court, under Deputy Master Linwood, ruled in favour of Josephine Oakley, affirming the validity of the will’s revocation. The decision centred on two key issues: Keats’ testamentary capacity and the proper execution of the revocation process, in accordance with Section 20 of the Wills Act 1837.

The primary issue in the case was Keats’ mental capacity. The judge concluded that Keats had the necessary mental capacity when she destroyed her will, noting that she was in a “lucid interval” at the time of the revocation. A key factor in this decision was the attendance notes taken by Webb, which documented Keats’ clear instructions and her understanding of the consequences of revoking her will. These notes satisfied the criteria set out in Banks v. Goodfellow, demonstrating that Keats intended to revoke her will and was fully aware of the implications of her actions.

The court also determined that, although Keats had only partially torn the will, her instructions to Webb to complete its destruction were valid. Webb’s actions, carried out in her presence, were considered sufficient, as Keats had authorised her to finish the task through a clear non-verbal signal—a nod of her head. This was regarded as a deliberate and unmistakable form of communication, rather than passive “acquiescence.”

Protecting your wishes: avoiding the pitfalls of torn wills

This case highlights several key legal principles and practical lessons for individuals engaged in estate planning:

• Will disputes often arise amidst grief and family tensions, particularly when money or inheritance is involved. These disputes can be costly and emotionally charged, especially when they reach the courts.
• Professional advice is crucial when making significant changes to your will. In Keats’ case, Webb’s detailed attendance notes provided crucial evidence that helped establish Keats’ intentions and capacity to revoke the will. This shows how important it is to ensure that changes to your will are carefully documented and executed in a legally sound manner.
• Revoking a will is not as simple as destroying it. If a will is destroyed but no new will is created, the estate may be distributed under the intestacy rules, which may not align with the deceased’s true wishes. This is a key reason why updating your will regularly and seeking legal guidance when making changes is vital.

Seeking help from us

At BBS Law, we specialise in helping clients navigate complex probate disputes, including those arising from contentious will revocations. If you find yourself facing a similar situation or are unsure about the validity of a will or the revocation process, do not hesitate to get in touch with us. Our expert team can guide you through the legal complexities with ease and professionalism.

The Judgment can be found here: Crew & Anor v Oakley & Ors

Image Credit