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