Lifetime gifts and residue


(claire.flood162) #1

A lifetime gift of £30,000.00 was made to a niece in April 2017. The Tx died in October 2017. The niece is also one of the residuary beneficiaries together with another niece and nephew. Does the gift have to be brought back into account before the residuary estate is distributed.

Claire Flood
CLAIRE FLOOD SOLICITORS


(saraharundel) #2

My understanding is that unless T stood in loco parentis to the niece the presumption against double portions will not apply and the niece will be entitled to the £30k and her share of the residuary estate.

Sarah Arundel
Taylor Fawcett


(michael-packham) #3

Was there a Hotchpot clause in T’s Will? That will I suspect change matters.

Michael Packham
Standley & Co


(claire.flood162) #4

No hotchpot clause in the Will.

Kind regards,

Claire Flood
CLAIRE FLOOD SOLICITORS


(nfox) #5

When did T make his Will?

Nicola Fox
Thrings


(claire.flood162) #6

2013

Claire Flood
CLAIRE FLOOD SOLICITORS


(nfox) #7

Hi Claire, my understanding would have been that the doctrine of satisfaction would apply since T made his Will prior to the life time gift?
Nicola Fox
Thrings


(claire.flood162) #8

Thank you but their relationship is not parent and child but aunt and niece.

Claire Flood
CLAIRE FLOOD SOLICITORS


(Simon James Northcott) #9

Satisfaction does not depend on relationship, but the nature of the gifts:

See
the definition in 2 White & Tud LC (9th Edn) 326, adopted by Lord Romilly in
Lord
Chichester v Coventry
(1867)
LR 2 HL 71 at 95
.
There will be no satisfaction if both a gift by will to a donee and a later gift inter vivos by the testator to the same donee are ‘pure bounty’, ‘spontaneous bounty’, or ‘mere gifts’:
Re
Cameron, Phillips v Cameron [1999]
Ch 386
,
[1999]
2 All ER 924
.

In
all cases of satisfaction the question is one of the intention of the settlor or testator7

7

Weall v Rice (1831) 2 Russ & M 251 at 265;
Hopwood v Hopwood (1859) 7 HL Cas 728 at 737;
Lord Chichester v Coventry

(1867) LR 2 HL 71 at 82
; Re Cameron, Phillips v Cameron
[1999]
Ch 386
,
[1999] 2 All ER 924
. Hence regard must be paid to the circumstances at the date of the instrument alleged to constitute satisfaction, and not to the actual result:
Cartwright v Cartwright
[1903] 2 Ch 306
; and see Re Wall’s Estate, Leneham v Wall

[1922] 1 IR 59
.

Simon Norhcott