Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Attestation Clause in Will
269 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen Mawson
Mar 30, 2012, 10:15:02 AM3/30/12
to
Can anyone say whether the requirements -- or perhaps the practice -- for
the attestation clause of a Will have changed in the last 30 or 40 years? I
am at present dealing with my mother's estate and following the
(unproblematic) interview the Probate Office have written to say that the
attestation clause is faulty and that they wish to take evidence from one of
the witnesses. My mother wrote the Will herself in 2008 but she copied the
attestation clause verbatim from a previous solicitor-produced Will dating
from the early 1970s, which presumably used what was then the standard and
acceptable form.
Many thanks,
Stephen
the attestation clause of a Will have changed in the last 30 or 40 years? I
am at present dealing with my mother's estate and following the
(unproblematic) interview the Probate Office have written to say that the
attestation clause is faulty and that they wish to take evidence from one of
the witnesses. My mother wrote the Will herself in 2008 but she copied the
attestation clause verbatim from a previous solicitor-produced Will dating
from the early 1970s, which presumably used what was then the standard and
acceptable form.
Many thanks,
Stephen
Robin
Mar 30, 2012, 11:55:01 AM3/30/12
to
to suggest that you
quote the *precise* words used in the will. It is possible that either
the solicitor in the 1970s or
your late mother in 2008 made a mistake when copying stock words.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Big Les Wade
Mar 30, 2012, 11:50:04 AM3/30/12
to
Stephen Mawson <stephenj...@btopenworld.com> posted
An acquaintance of mine had a similar experience. In his case it was
that the attestation clause could conceivably be interpreted in such a
way that it did not guarantee that both witnesses signed the will in the
presence of the testator, although it does state explicitly that the
testatrix executed the will in the presence of both witnesses, and that
both witnesses then signed it in each other's presence.
That attestation clause too was copied from an old will prepared by a
solicitor. In fact, the testatrix copied it from her husband's will,
confident in the knowledge that the probate office had raised no
objection when *that* will was submitted for probate.
I don't think it is the statutory requirements that have changed - they
are governed by the 1837 Wills Act as amended (very slightly) by s17 of
the 1982 Administration of Justice Act. But some probate registries
appear to be more awkward than they used to be. In my friend's case, he
made the mistake of using the Principal Probate Registry in central
London, which is known in the profession for combining a startling level
of incompetence and illiteracy with an unwillingness to provide any help
whatsoever. Very, very few professional practitioners use it to apply
for a grant; they prefer the provincial registries.
--
Les
that the attestation clause could conceivably be interpreted in such a
way that it did not guarantee that both witnesses signed the will in the
presence of the testator, although it does state explicitly that the
testatrix executed the will in the presence of both witnesses, and that
both witnesses then signed it in each other's presence.
That attestation clause too was copied from an old will prepared by a
solicitor. In fact, the testatrix copied it from her husband's will,
confident in the knowledge that the probate office had raised no
objection when *that* will was submitted for probate.
I don't think it is the statutory requirements that have changed - they
are governed by the 1837 Wills Act as amended (very slightly) by s17 of
the 1982 Administration of Justice Act. But some probate registries
appear to be more awkward than they used to be. In my friend's case, he
made the mistake of using the Principal Probate Registry in central
London, which is known in the profession for combining a startling level
of incompetence and illiteracy with an unwillingness to provide any help
whatsoever. Very, very few professional practitioners use it to apply
for a grant; they prefer the provincial registries.
--
Les
Stephen Mawson
Mar 30, 2012, 1:30:03 PM3/30/12
to
"Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jl4kvr$nrp$1...@dont-email.me...
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand to this my Will this XXX day
of XXX two thousand and eight
SIGNED by the above-named XXX as and for her last Will in the presence of us
both present at the same time who at her request in the presence of each
other have hereunder subscribed our names as witnesses:"
Stephen
John Briggs
Mar 30, 2012, 2:15:02 PM3/30/12
to
On 30/03/2012 16:50, Big Les Wade wrote:
>
> An acquaintance of mine had a similar experience. In his case it was
> that the attestation clause could conceivably be interpreted in such a
> way that it did not guarantee that both witnesses signed the will in the
> presence of the testator, although it does state explicitly that the
> testatrix executed the will in the presence of both witnesses, and that
> both witnesses then signed it in each other's presence.
But does the testator have to be present when the witnesses sign? The
>
> An acquaintance of mine had a similar experience. In his case it was
> that the attestation clause could conceivably be interpreted in such a
> way that it did not guarantee that both witnesses signed the will in the
> presence of the testator, although it does state explicitly that the
> testatrix executed the will in the presence of both witnesses, and that
> both witnesses then signed it in each other's presence.
witnesses are witnessing the testator signing, not vice versa. If the
latter is required, there should be a further signature by the testator
to that effect. (Would that further signature need to be witnessed?)
--
John Briggs
steve robinson
Mar 30, 2012, 3:55:02 PM3/30/12
to
Stephen Mawson wrote:
>
> "Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jl4kvr$nrp$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> Can anyone say whether the requirements -- or perhaps the
> practice -- >> for the attestation clause of a Will have changed in
> the last 30 or >> 40 years? I am at present dealing with my
> mother's estate and >> following the (unproblematic) interview the
> Probate Office have >> written to say that the attestation clause
> is faulty and that they >> wish to take evidence from one of the
> witnesses. My mother wrote the >> Will herself in 2008 but she
> copied the attestation clause verbatim >> from a previous
> solicitor-produced Will dating from the early 1970s, >> which
> presumably used what was then the standard and acceptable form.
> > >
> > Sorry - I don't know if anything has changed. But I stick my
> > head over to suggest that you
> > quote the precise words used in the will. It is possible that
>
> "Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jl4kvr$nrp$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> Can anyone say whether the requirements -- or perhaps the
> practice -- >> for the attestation clause of a Will have changed in
> the last 30 or >> 40 years? I am at present dealing with my
> mother's estate and >> following the (unproblematic) interview the
> Probate Office have >> written to say that the attestation clause
> is faulty and that they >> wish to take evidence from one of the
> witnesses. My mother wrote the >> Will herself in 2008 but she
> copied the attestation clause verbatim >> from a previous
> solicitor-produced Will dating from the early 1970s, >> which
> presumably used what was then the standard and acceptable form.
> > >
> > Sorry - I don't know if anything has changed. But I stick my
> > head over to suggest that you
> > either the solicitor in the 1970s or
> > your late mother in 2008 made a mistake when copying stock words.
> >
> > --
> > Robin
> > reply to address is (meant to be) valid
>
> Thank you, Robin: the exact wording is as follows:
>
> "IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand to this my Will
> this XXX day of XXX two thousand and eight
>
> SIGNED by the above-named XXX as and for her last Will in the
> presence of us both present at the same time who at her request in
> the presence of each other have hereunder subscribed our names as
> witnesses:"
>
> Stephen
I can understand why its been picked up, its written in a rather
> > your late mother in 2008 made a mistake when copying stock words.
> >
> > --
> > Robin
> > reply to address is (meant to be) valid
>
> Thank you, Robin: the exact wording is as follows:
>
> "IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand to this my Will
> this XXX day of XXX two thousand and eight
>
> SIGNED by the above-named XXX as and for her last Will in the
> presence of us both present at the same time who at her request in
> the presence of each other have hereunder subscribed our names as
> witnesses:"
>
> Stephen
strange style. It just looks dodgy
Big Les Wade
Mar 30, 2012, 4:40:02 PM3/30/12
to
Stephen Mawson <stephenj...@btopenworld.com> posted
signed in the testatrix's presence.
--
Les
>
>"IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand to this my Will this XXX day
>of XXX two thousand and eight
>
>SIGNED by the above-named XXX as and for her last Will in the presence of us
>both present at the same time who at her request in the presence of each
>other have hereunder subscribed our names as witnesses:"
>
Like the one I described, it doesn't explicitly swear that the witnesses
>"IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand to this my Will this XXX day
>of XXX two thousand and eight
>
>SIGNED by the above-named XXX as and for her last Will in the presence of us
>both present at the same time who at her request in the presence of each
>other have hereunder subscribed our names as witnesses:"
>
signed in the testatrix's presence.
--
Les
Message has been deleted
Big Les Wade
Mar 31, 2012, 8:55:02 AM3/31/12
to
Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> posted
>Wouldn't that be covered by "SIGNED by the above-named XXX...in the
>presence of us"?
>
That just says that the testator (XXX) signed the will in the presence
of the witnesses. It doesn't say that the witnesses signed it in the
presence of the testator - which for some reason is also a statutory
requirement for the will to be valid.
Of course it is ridiculously pedantic but that's how the Principal
probate registry interpreted it.
--
Les
>presence of us"?
>
That just says that the testator (XXX) signed the will in the presence
of the witnesses. It doesn't say that the witnesses signed it in the
presence of the testator - which for some reason is also a statutory
requirement for the will to be valid.
Of course it is ridiculously pedantic but that's how the Principal
probate registry interpreted it.
--
Les
Ian Jackson
Mar 31, 2012, 11:40:02 AM3/31/12
to
In message <IhGBfDCJ...@obviously.invalid>, Big Les Wade
<L...@nowhere.com> writes
FWIW, my will says:
Attestation
Dated this xxxxxx day of xxxxxx TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
SIGNED by the above named [my full name] as and for his last
Will in our presence and then by us in his
My signature
[Signature of Testator]
yyy yyyyyy
[Signature of 1st Witness]
Full Name ...................
Address .......................
Occupation ....................
zzzz zzzzzzz
[Signature of 2nd Witness]
Full Name ...................
Address .......................
Occupation ....................
--
Ian
<L...@nowhere.com> writes
Attestation
Dated this xxxxxx day of xxxxxx TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
SIGNED by the above named [my full name] as and for his last
Will in our presence and then by us in his
My signature
[Signature of Testator]
yyy yyyyyy
[Signature of 1st Witness]
Full Name ...................
Address .......................
Occupation ....................
zzzz zzzzzzz
[Signature of 2nd Witness]
Full Name ...................
Address .......................
Occupation ....................
--
Ian
John Briggs
Mar 31, 2012, 5:05:02 PM3/31/12
to
testatrix who has to sign in the witnesses' presence.
--
John Briggs
Ian Jackson
Mar 31, 2012, 5:45:02 PM3/31/12
to
In message <4dKdr.64533$o93....@fx05.am4>, John Briggs
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
From what my will says (see other branch of thread), testator and
witnesses all sign in each other's presence. It's the natural thing to
do. However, I would have thought that the important thing is that the
witnesses witness 'live' the testator's signing.
It is less obvious why the testator needs to be present when the
witnesses sign. But I guess that it's in his own best interests that he
should do so, just in case it later turns out that the witnesses'
signatures are in some way defective. After all, if one of them had
sneakily signed 'Mickey Mouse', and the testator or other keeper of the
will hadn't noticed, there might be some difficulty getting the will
recognised!
--
Ian
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
witnesses all sign in each other's presence. It's the natural thing to
do. However, I would have thought that the important thing is that the
witnesses witness 'live' the testator's signing.
It is less obvious why the testator needs to be present when the
witnesses sign. But I guess that it's in his own best interests that he
should do so, just in case it later turns out that the witnesses'
signatures are in some way defective. After all, if one of them had
sneakily signed 'Mickey Mouse', and the testator or other keeper of the
will hadn't noticed, there might be some difficulty getting the will
recognised!
--
Ian
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
John Briggs
Mar 31, 2012, 9:00:04 PM3/31/12
to
On 31/03/2012 22:45, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> had signed in their presence and that they were now signing in the presence
> of the testator.
Logically, the testator ought to sign again to confirm that...
--
John Briggs
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:15:02 +0100, John Briggs<john.b...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2012 16:50, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>
>>> An acquaintance of mine had a similar experience. In his case it was
>>> that the attestation clause could conceivably be interpreted in such a
>>> way that it did not guarantee that both witnesses signed the will in the
>>> presence of the testator, although it does state explicitly that the
>>> testatrix executed the will in the presence of both witnesses, and that
>>> both witnesses then signed it in each other's presence.
>>
>> But does the testator have to be present when the witnesses sign?
>
> Yes.
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/03/2012 16:50, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>>
>>> An acquaintance of mine had a similar experience. In his case it was
>>> that the attestation clause could conceivably be interpreted in such a
>>> way that it did not guarantee that both witnesses signed the will in the
>>> presence of the testator, although it does state explicitly that the
>>> testatrix executed the will in the presence of both witnesses, and that
>>> both witnesses then signed it in each other's presence.
>>
>> But does the testator have to be present when the witnesses sign?
>
>
>> The
>> witnesses are witnessing the testator signing, not vice versa.
>
> Yes, AND vice versa.
>> The
>> witnesses are witnessing the testator signing, not vice versa.
>
>
>> If the
>> latter is required, there should be a further signature by the testator
>> to that effect. (Would that further signature need to be witnessed?)
>
> In attestations the statement of each witness should be that the testator
>> If the
>> latter is required, there should be a further signature by the testator
>> to that effect. (Would that further signature need to be witnessed?)
>
> had signed in their presence and that they were now signing in the presence
> of the testator.
Logically, the testator ought to sign again to confirm that...
--
John Briggs
Ian Jackson
Apr 1, 2012, 4:45:02 AM4/1/12
to
In message <fa7fn7l02uebje0qf...@4ax.com>, Anthony R. Gold
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> writes
But presumably both have to witness the testator signing? It would be an
odd sort of scenario if one witness (or even both of them) then decided
NOT to sign there and then (when they would be together in each other's
presence and in the presence of the testator).
However, what would happen if the two witnesses could not both be
present when the testator signed? Would it be OK for the testator to
sign twice - first in front of one witness, and then in front of the
other?
--
Ian
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:45:02 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <4dKdr.64533$o93....@fx05.am4>, John Briggs
>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
><ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <4dKdr.64533$o93....@fx05.am4>, John Briggs
>> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>> Why do the witnesses have to sign in the testatrix's presence? It is
>>> the testatrix who has to sign in the witnesses' presence.
>>
>> From what my will says (see other branch of thread), testator and
>> witnesses all sign in each other's presence.
>
>Not quite, any witness need not sign in the presence of another witness.
>>> the testatrix who has to sign in the witnesses' presence.
>>
>> From what my will says (see other branch of thread), testator and
>> witnesses all sign in each other's presence.
>
But presumably both have to witness the testator signing? It would be an
odd sort of scenario if one witness (or even both of them) then decided
NOT to sign there and then (when they would be together in each other's
presence and in the presence of the testator).
However, what would happen if the two witnesses could not both be
present when the testator signed? Would it be OK for the testator to
sign twice - first in front of one witness, and then in front of the
other?
--
Ian
Stephen Mawson
Apr 1, 2012, 2:20:02 PM4/1/12
to
Thank you for your many useful comments. It is now fairly clear that the
problem has arisen through the testator in 2008 copying the attestation
clause from a 1970s Will and thus not taking account of the changed
provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, s.17.
I will post again with the outcome when the matter is resolved -- the
witnesses are due to give evidence to the Probate Office later this month. A
statement from them, probably an affidavit, to the effect that they and the
testator were all together when all three signed will presumably meet the
need.
Many thanks again,
Stephen
problem has arisen through the testator in 2008 copying the attestation
clause from a 1970s Will and thus not taking account of the changed
provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, s.17.
I will post again with the outcome when the matter is resolved -- the
witnesses are due to give evidence to the Probate Office later this month. A
statement from them, probably an affidavit, to the effect that they and the
testator were all together when all three signed will presumably meet the
need.
Many thanks again,
Stephen
RobertL
Apr 2, 2012, 5:00:05 AM4/2/12
to
Mine says the following (below) , and it does seem to be worded to make it clear that everyone involved saw everyone else sign it.
"In witness whereof I have to this my Will set my hand this 4th day of August two thousand and five (2005).
Signed by the said xxx as and for his last Will and Testament in the presence of us both being present at the same time who at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other have subscribed our names as witnesses:"
RobertL
Apr 2, 2012, 5:25:01 AM4/2/12
to
Pelican
Apr 2, 2012, 8:25:02 AM4/2/12
to
"RobertL" <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28498814.3113.1333358233151.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14...
may come into operation. That is, in the absence of a contrary indication,
the presumption is that things are done regularly and in accordance with the
law.
0 new messages