Equity law

To: Senior Partner

Date: 3^rd January 2019

Question Presented

Under UK low, Rosetta Stanley has written last will that is home-made. Though this memo, the validity of the home-made will of Rosetta Stanley will be identified. In addition to this, there is some question regarding the validity of Will and the validity of the gifts that are provided to the trusts.

In addition to this, this memo is also identifying that what would happen to the loan that is provided by Rosetta to Grendell Optics Company, if the company would get good liquidation position before the debts were paid by the court?

Rule

The main rule for making a will is that the will should vary from state to state and it must meet all the certain formalities that are included in the act. On the other hand, the rule also states that a will is not valid unless it does not fulfill the requirements.

In concern of this, it is identified that Rosetta is aged 70 years old, the will is in a written format and the will is signed by Rosetta. On the other hand, the witness should also sign on the will make it valid but it should not be a beneficiary.

Analysis of the validity

The case study defines that Rosetta Stanley has made a will for their available equity. In concern of this, it is identified that Rosetta has written several things that are not fulfilling the actual condition of the case. This analysis will identify the validity of the will to make effective decisions. There are some topics that are defining the validity of the will:

The validity of Rosetta’s home-made will– It is identified that Rosetta Stanley is a widow aged 70 years old and she has drafted the home-made will that includes several points that are valid. It is because the will is made a person who has legal age, testamentary capacity, intent, and proper disposal of property, signed, and dated.

But in concern to witness by other parties, the will is invalid because the beneficiary cannot be a witness. Thus, as per the requirement of a valid will, it can be said that this will is not following all the necessary requirements to make it a valid will. Similarly, the will is also drafted by Rosetta so it is a home-made will with including a proper legal aspect before writing it.

In concern to this case, it is also identified that Rosetta left the sum of £5,000 for Thomas Stanley but he is not legally bound to invest in the maintenance of Rosetta’ cat Lucy.

Thus, it can be said that Rosetta can rewrite the will to increase the validity of it. Otherwise, the court cannot take the right decision against the maintenance of Lucy (cat) that is provided by Rosetta to her son Thomas.

Similarly, Thomas is also not legally bound in the will to invest the money that was left by Rosetta as the sum of £50,000 for her niece Esther Moore. So as per the statement, it can be said that this will is valid but it can also consider the money as personal use and it can deliver this amount to her niece.

It is because Rosetta has orally stated this statement to her son so he is not legally liable to pay this amount to Esther Moore. It can be said that this outcome can reduce the validity of the will because the need for Rosetta might not be fulfilled by Thomas if he has not a clean heart. However, it can reduce the original outcomes that are wanted by Rosetta.

The validity of the gifts and trusts in or as a result of the will– On the basis of the case study, it is identified that Rosetta has left the sum of £100,000 for setting up a trust as charitable private fee-paying school for children who are living in Hatfield.

The charitable private school will be opened at Hatfield. This sum of amount is valid that will be provided by the court as per the requirement of trust. But this will is not showing that who will get this amount and who will open the charitable private fee-paying school for children.

If Rosetta provided the name of a person who will get this amount then the validity of will has been increased. In this, the amount will be delivered to the right person who will spend this amount for charitable school.

On the other hand, it is also identified that the sum of £40,000 is also provided by Rosetta for two different trusts with equal share. In this, Hamster trust at Hatfield has a sum of £20,000 share in the provided amount but this trust is not available now due to wind up at the end of December 2018 and the will was written on 2 January 2019.

This gift amount is not valid in this will because this amount will not be delivered to the right beneficiary because it is not available. However, it can be said that this will is not valid for this sum amount of £20,000. In addition to this, Rosetta also gifted the amount of £20,000 for Hedgehog society that is also a trust.

In the case, it is identified that the assets and liabilities of Hedgehog society were taken over by Hertforshire Animal Preservation Trust. Hertforshire Animal Preservation Trust is a registered charitable trust in early 2017.

As per the case, it can be said that Hertforshire Animal Preservation took over all the assets and liabilities of Hedgehog society so that the gift amount is the assets of Hedgehog society. However, now the sum amount of £20,000 is also the assets of Hertforshire Animal Preservation. Thus, it can be said that this is a valid home-made will.

The validity of the will about the loan to Grendell Optics Company went into liquidation before the debts were paid– In concern to Grendell Optics Ltd, it is analyzed that Rosetta has provided £200,000 as a loan to recover the firm from debt position.

But in case, if the company went into liquidation before the debts were paid then the court will decide what would happen. In this case, the company can get the sum amount after the order of the court or it can also be an invalid contract if the court does not allow for this amount. In addition to this, there is another option where the court can take permission from Rosetta, who is a writer of home-made will.

In order to reduce the misuse of the amount the entire person related to the will should be legally bounded. On the other hand, it is identified that it is only assumed that the financial position of the company is liquidation but as per Rosetta, the company is debt position that needs amount to increase the financial position.

However, it is identified that the will is valid but as per the assumption, it is not valid. Rosetta can alter and add something in the will to fulfill all requirements.

 Conclusion

On the basis of the above case, it can be concluded that the court will probably analyze the validity of the will on the basis of the constitution. If there is a possibility to change the will then it will be done by the layer. It can also be said that Rosetta can redraft the will according to the needs and requirements of the alteration and addition.