<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Wed, 30 May 2012 03:36:37 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Life and Death and Taxes</title><subtitle>Journal</subtitle><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/atom.xml"/><updated>2012-05-15T07:26:39Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.81 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill</title><category term="Discussion"/><category term="Trusts"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/5/15/trusts-capital-and-income-bill.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/5/15/trusts-capital-and-income-bill.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-05-15T07:26:38Z</published><updated>2012-05-15T07:26:38Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[Excerpt from section 1 of the Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill (currently in the Lords):]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill</title><category term="Discussion"/><category term="Succession"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/5/15/inheritance-cohabitants-bill.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/5/15/inheritance-cohabitants-bill.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-05-15T07:20:13Z</published><updated>2012-05-15T07:20:13Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[Does the Inheritance (Cohabitants) Bill, currently in the Lords, allow more than one qualifying cohabitant to take on intestacy or apply under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975?]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Tamlin v Edgar</title><category term="Directions"/><category term="Law"/><category term="Public Trustee v Cooper"/><category term="Trustees"/><category term="Trusts"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/23/tamlin-v-edgar.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/23/tamlin-v-edgar.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-02-23T08:29:42Z</published><updated>2012-02-23T08:29:42Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[Where trustees make an application to the court for an order within the second category described by Hart j in Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] WTLR 901, at 923, the fact that the decision was momentous and was that of the trustees, and not of the court, made it important that "the court was put into possession of all the relevant facts so that it might be satisfied that the decision of the trustees was both proper and for the benefit of the appointees and advancees".]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Cripps Trust Corporation Ltd v Sands</title><category term="Costs"/><category term="Law"/><category term="Succession"/><category term="Trustee"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/14/cripps-trust-corporation-ltd-v-sands.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/14/cripps-trust-corporation-ltd-v-sands.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-02-14T09:26:09Z</published><updated>2012-02-14T09:26:09Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[The testator conferred on his will trustee a power of appointment over his collection of valuable paintings.  The objects of the power were various named institutions.  The testator left the remainder of his estate to be divided amongst his three grandchildren absolutely.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Barrett v Bem</title><category term="Execution"/><category term="Law"/><category term="Probate"/><category term="Succession"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/8/barrett-v-bem.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/8/barrett-v-bem.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-02-08T08:41:31Z</published><updated>2012-02-08T08:41:31Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[The deceased, who was in hospital, wished to make a will.  His niece wrote out a will document in manuscript, leaving everything to her mother, Anne, who was the deceased's sister. There were two trials (the second after an appeal) and the evidence about the execution was inconsistent.  At the end, the judge held that Anne had tried to steady the deceased's hand as he signed, but then took the pen and signed the will on his behalf.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Marley v Rawlings upheld</title><category term="Law"/><category term="Probate"/><category term="Rectification"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/7/marley-v-rawlings-upheld.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/2/7/marley-v-rawlings-upheld.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-02-07T13:17:06Z</published><updated>2012-02-07T13:17:06Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[Mr and Mrs Rawlings made wills in almost identical terms; each appointed the other, if survived by him or her, to be executor and take the whole estate.  In each case, if the other had not survived, then Mr Marley was appointed executor and universal beneficiary.  Unfortunately, Mr Rawlings executed the will intended for Mrs Rawlings, and she the will intended for him.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Perdoni v Curati</title><category term="Conflict of laws"/><category term="Domicile"/><category term="Law"/><category term="Revocation"/><category term="Wills"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/1/12/perdoni-v-curati.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2012/1/12/perdoni-v-curati.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2012-01-12T06:38:12Z</published><updated>2012-01-12T06:38:12Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[The terms of the previous will were not revoked by the later will, which did not contain an express revocation clause, having regard to the presumption against implied revocation.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death</title><category term="Family provision"/><category term="Intestacy"/><category term="LLaw Commission"/><category term="News"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/12/14/intestacy-and-family-provision-claims-on-death.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/12/14/intestacy-and-family-provision-claims-on-death.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2011-12-14T15:36:31Z</published><updated>2011-12-14T15:36:31Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[The Law Commission's report on Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death was published today.]]></summary></entry><entry><title>The Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 (Commencement) Order 2011</title><category term="Forfeiture"/><category term="Law"/><category term="Succession"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/12/9/the-estates-of-deceased-persons-forfeiture-rule-and-law-of-s.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/12/9/the-estates-of-deceased-persons-forfeiture-rule-and-law-of-s.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2011-12-09T09:10:17Z</published><updated>2011-12-09T09:10:17Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011 come into force on 1st February 2012]]></summary></entry><entry><title>Wright v Gater</title><category term="Inheritance tax"/><category term="Law"/><category term="Maintenance and advancement"/><category term="Minors"/><category term="Variation of estates"/><id>http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/11/24/wright-v-gater.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ladat.co.uk/journal/2011/11/24/wright-v-gater.html"/><author><name>Leigh Sagar</name></author><published>2011-11-24T13:57:38Z</published><updated>2011-11-24T13:57:38Z</updated><summary type="html" xml:lang="en-GB"><![CDATA[The deceased (Edward) died instestate in 2009 and his estate, worth in excess of £500,000, passed to his son (Kieran), who died soon afterwards.  Kieran's entire estate (including Edward's estate) passed to his own son (Rory), who was almost two years old at the date of Kieran's death.]]></summary></entry></feed>
