Estate in UK Law

In the former it is such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive whether or not it is required for his or her maintenance.

He has merely been given the power of saying on behalf of the settlor which of the issue of A shall take the property under the settlement and in what proportions. It is as though the settlor had left a blank in the settlement which B fills up for him if and when the power of appointment is exercised. The appointees' interests come to them under the settlement alone and by virtue of that document.

The two documents both record the deceased wanting 25% of the proceeds of the house to go to Steven Pead and 25% to Keith Pead with 50% going to residue. The manuscript amendment records that residue is “÷ between all those mentioned in clauses 4.1–4.8”. The attendance records that the residue is to be divided “between those people mention in clauses 4.1 to 4.8 “in equal shares”.

Looking at the state of the evidence as a whole and all the circumstances I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities or with a sufficient degree of confidence to order rectification that the deceased intended that his residuary estate be divided only amongst the family members. Mrs Hill's manuscript annotation on the draft will records that there was to be division between all those mentioned in Clauses 4.1 to 4.8.

I am however satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it was not the deceased's intention that his residuary estate should be divided between all those mentioned in clauses 4.1 to 4.8 in equal shares.

Had clause 11 been discussed and reviewed by Mrs Sartin with the deceased, the omission of any words specifying how residue was to be divided between the beneficiaries named in clauses 4.1 to 4.8 would surely have been picked up.