Liverpool Law February 14 February 2014 | Page 26

26 Wills Cuckoo in the Nest? The case of Marley v Rawlings is a tale of family, money and wills – a potent mix indeed. Naomi Pinder of Quality Solicitors Jackson & Canter Facts the man who had replaced them in their parents’ affections. Mr and Mrs Rawlings made mirror wills leaving everything to each other and then to Terry Marley, who was not related to them but had been treated as a son. In conclusion, the natural love and affection of this family had been turned on its head, the sons being usurped by another – for whatever reason. The case cries out with unresolved hurts of the pain of rejection, the hardness of heart and the coldness of litigation. It would be so difficult for any reconciliation (though never impossible), the solicitor’s mistake exacerbated the feud. Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ sons Terry and Michael were excluded from the arrangements. Note also that the house was held as a joint tenancy with Mr Marley and therefore passed to him through survivorship. Mrs Rawlings died then her husband and at that stage it was discovered that they had actually signed each other’s wills. I can only imagine how the solicitor’s heart lurched when he recovered the will from storage and saw that Mr Rawlings had failed to sign his own will – ouch! The estate was £70,000. Ratio Mr Marley brought proceedings in the High Court to rectify the Mr Rawlings’ will (Will), he lost and appealed to the CoA, he lost and appealed to the Supreme Court and he was successful. Lord Neuberger held that the concept of clerical error in connection with the rectification of wills should considered widely. The point being to identify the intention of the testator from the circumstances and extrinsic evidence. Thoughts on the Case I think that it’s too easy to say this is yet another case illustrating the corrupting power of the love of money and acquisition of wealth, little to think of the relief of the solicitor whose silly mistake resulted in this debacle. There can’t be much money left after the payment of costs. I wonder about the background to this unusual family arrangement. Both sons were excluded. It’s not uncommon at all for there to be an estrangement between parents and one child, it can happen for all sorts of reasons – a silly argument, lost in the mists of time, resulting in deeply entrenched positions and everyone has actually forgotten why they hate each other. Perhaps there hadn’t been a fall out but a gradual loss of contact between parents and children. Perhaps they pursued their own self-centred lives leaving their parents to be cared for by someone else. When Mr Rawlings died and the mistake was discovered, I would expect the Will to be regarded as invalid and the estate to pass under the intestacy rules and Mr Marley to pursue the solicitor in negligence as a disappointed beneficiary. But Mr Marley launched pro