(Professor Name)
Charles’ appointment as an executor of Lord Marchmain’s will makes him responsible for administering the deceased estate. As an executor, Charles must collect all the assets of the estate, ascertain the estate’s liabilities and pay all its debts, taxes due, funeral and administration expenses out of the deceased estate. Ultimately, Charles will have to transfer any remaining estate to beneficiaries. Lord Marchamain’s estate include: the Beechyhead Castle, 100,000 loan to Charles, 400,000 contained in the Building Society Account, Art restoration business. The beneficiaries of the deceased estate are Julia, Sebastian and Cordelia. This paper proceeds on assumption that the conditions on validity of a will have been met. The scope of the paper is also tailored to advising Charles the executor regarding the 100,000 loan, the building society account, the company shares, and the 3,000,000 given to the SRRA.
The 100,000 Loan
In order to restore Beechyhead castle, Lord Marchmain advanced 100,000 to Charles and Julia since they had been refused further loans by the bank. The loan was to be interest free and was to be paid back when the castle start receiving visitors. However, after having lived there for two weeks, Lord Marchmain was so moved by Charles's love for the castle that he told Charles not to worry about paying that loan back.
In the first instance, 100,000 is debt owed to the deceased estate. Charles as the executor is under obligation to collect the debts owed to the deceased estate. He is therefore under obligation to pay into the deceased estate the said sum of money. However, Lord Marchmain excuses him from repaying the loan because of his love for the Beechyhead castle. This relationship gives rise to a contractual relationship between Charles and the deceased (Haley& McMurtry 2006). Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation, it thus follows that where a person is under an obligation to perform a particular act and he does some other act which is capable of being regarded as a fulfillment of this obligation, that other act will prima facie be regarded as fulfillment of the obligation. From the facts, the love that Charles had for the Beechyhead Castle as observed by Lord Marchmain is enough to be considered as a repayment of the loan.
The Building Society account
In this part, Lord Marchmain gives Sebastian a savings book which was related to a building society account containing 40000 because he wanted to see him ‘set up for life’. In practice, this is an example of oral wills. Such wills are also known as nuncupative or deathbed wills, and they refer to any will that is communicated verbally to the executor or witness or beneficiary without a written document. In succession and equity, such wills are valid in certain states, while other states do not recognize the validity of these wills. The concept behind the validity of such wills is based on the idea that in case a person becomes ill or is in extreme danger suddenly (to the point that they cannot make a written will), their last wishes/word should be honored (Lewin 2010). A prerequisite to this, however, is that there must be a witness who is not a party to the will. The presence of the executor when the will is being communicated does not make him or her a witness. In the case of the oral statement made by Marchmain, the executor may put up an argument that the statement did not amount to a will.
An oral will is expected to meet most of the requirements of a written will for it to be considered valid. Depending on the jurisdiction of the matter, the requirements for a valid will differ (Peloubet 2007). Despite this, there are basic requirements that ought to be met. In essence, there are several formalities of a will.
The statement of Mr. Marchmain to his youngest son does not constitute a will. The practice is that the only oral wills that are recognized by most states are those made by soldiers who are on duty or at war and a sailor. To some extent, an individual who is in immediate danger can also be allowed to make an oral will which will be considered valid. In this case, Mr. Marchmain is not in immediate danger because he survives for a further week. Before becoming unconscious, he was in his right state of mind to make a written will on how his property would be distributed after his death.
There are very few states that accept the validity of oral wills. However, when this is the case, the courts have some minimum threshold upon which to determine whether the oral will meet the required criteria or not. In order for an oral will to be valid, there must be at least two witnesses. The witnesses should be competent enough to understand what is being communicated. The witnesses should also not be interested parties in the will. For the validity of the will to be approved, the witnesses involved should prove that the testator was in his or her right senses/sound mind and memory. Further, the law requires that the testator was able to call upon someone present during the communication as a testimony to the will’s disposition.
Going by the above discussion, he communication from Marchmain to his son, Sebastian, does not constitute a valid will. A number of reasons dictate this to be so. First, there were no witnesses when the communication was being made, hence debatable. Second, Mr. Marchmain was not in his worst condition to make a written will. As such, Charles would be better advised not to honor any claims by Sebastian that there was a will to receive the book after the death of his father.
The company’s shares
The case of the shares transferred to Cordelia by Marchmain addresses the principles and maxims of equity. According to the available information, Lord Marchmain handed the art-restoration business to the dinner while they were on dinner, to which the daughter accepted. The intended communication was to make the lady the managing director of the company in question. Lord Marchmain filled in a share transfer form which he gave his accountant to execute by completing the legal formalities that were required. However, the accountant mistakenly put the form in the ‘pending tray’ and left for a three-week holiday, failing to complete the formalities. According to law, the transfer of the shares was valid. This is based on the argument below.
One of the maxims of equity is that ‘Equity sees that as done what ought to be done’ (Dixon 2008). This means that a process or procedure needs to be fully completed for a party to get a remedy, provided there is enough reason and evidence suggesting that the process was on the course of being done. When a party is required by law to perform a certain task of legal significance and fails to do so because of unavoidable circumstances, equity will consider that act as done the manner it ought to have been done, even before it is practically done. This maxim plays a role in ensuring that one is not denied their right simply because a legal formality was not completed.
The relevance of this maxim is mostly employed in transactions where one bears the risk of loss. It is also commonly used in contract law, more so in selling real property. Although this is the case, the same principle can be employed in succession matters. In such cases, the receiving party/buyer is assumed to have obtained possession and equitable rights. This maxim is relevant to the case in point. In this case, there is no doubt that Marchmain has a right intention to transfer his shares to his daughter. From his part, Lord Marchmain effectively performed his roles. It was all upon the accountant to complete the legal formalities before the lady could become the managing director. It would be unfair to deny her this right based on the mistakes of the accountant.
This concept has been applied in several cases. In such circumstances, courts tend to look at the fair solution (Francis 2007). Such a solution may be arrived at by employing this maxim. In essence, the courts take into consideration what the position would be if whatever that should have been done was done as stipulated. If this is put into the context of this case, then there is no doubt that what ought to have been done was signing the legal documents by the accountant. Had the accountant signed the documents, the lady would have been declared the managing director of the organization. When the principles of equity are applied there is no doubt that the lady will be grated the ownership of the shares which her father intended to transfer to her. In essence, what ought to have been done will be completed by the courts (Riddall 2007). Because of this, Charles as the executor ought to take note that according o equity and law, the transfer of shares from Lord Marchmain to Cordelia was effective.
Money given to the trusts
Lord Marchmain’s final move was to dispose off some of his personal wealth to a charitable foundation, SRRA. In so doing, he appointed a number of experts as trustees. No paperwork was completed. After this, Lord Marchmain lapsed into unconsciousness. Before advising Charles on what he should do to this money (3 million), it is important to analyze certain aspects about charitable trusts and the rules that guide such trusts.
In practice, a charitable trust is set up either during the donor’s life or as a testamentary. In this case, Lord Marchmain’s charitable trust was made during his last days. For it to be valid, there are some legalities that ought to be met. First, the charitable trust should not be used for the purposes of making profits (Bogert 2003). It is also important that such trusts be used for public benefit. This principle was considered in the case of Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust. In this case, the donor created a fund which would benefit the children of current and former employees of the organization (British American Tobacco). This was a large number, with the employees being more than 110000. In making the verdict in this case, the judge reiterated the elements that must be met in order for a charitable trust to be considered as being valid (Rendell 2007).
The above elements on charitable trusts were also considered in the case of IRC v McMullen. In this case, the judges were tasked to define the conditions that must be met in order for a charitable trust to be considered formal. In the case of McGovern v Attorney General, the definition of charitable trusts and the conditions that should be met was further given by Slade J. In the same judgment, the court gave an analysis of the purposes of charitable trusts and how they should be executed (Pont & Mackie 2013).
Taking the above argument and precedents into consideration, Charles should be well-advised that the move by Lord Marchmain to give 3 million to SRRA is valid and recognized by law. Although paperwork was not completed, the donor had met the required conditions. Lord Marchmain had gone to the extent of looking for the trustees, hence the conclusion that Charles should respect this move by Lord Marchmain.
References
Bogert, G., & Bogert, G. (2003). Handbook of the law of trusts, (5th ed.). St. Paul: West Pub.
Dixon, M. (2008). Equity & trusts (2nd ed.). London: Cavendish.
Every man's own lawyer a handy book of the principles of law and equity, comprising the rights and wrongs of individuals (19th ed.). (1882). London: Crosby Lockwood.
Francis, R. (2007). Maxims of equity, collected from, and proved by cases in the High Court of Chancery. To which is added the case of the Earl of Coventry, concerning the defective execution of powers. London: In the Savoy :.
Haley, M., & McMurtry, L. (2006). Equity & trusts. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Lewin, T., & Lewin, F. (2009). A practical treatise on the law of trusts (7th ed.). London: William Maxwell & Son.
Peloubet, S. (2005). A Collection of legal maxims in law and equity, with English translations. Littleton, Colo.: F.B. Rothmann.
Pont, G., & Mackie, K. (2013). Law of succession. Chatswood, N.S.W.: LexisNexis Butterworths.
Rendell, C. (2007). Law of succession. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.
Riddall, J. (2007). Law of trusts. London: Butterworths.
