Would forum members read this Will as giving the worldwide estate to the beneficiary, or only the Thai assets?
"This is to be my last will and testament, hereby, expressly revoking all wills previously by me (if any)
I hereby give and bequeath all my properties of whatever nature, whether real personal or mixed, as well as the interests arising therefrom, to (beneficiary) as their own properties in the following proportion:
Money that has deposit in Bangkok Bank
My personal things that is in my current apartment
While I am making the testament, I am being of sound mind and memory therefore, put down my signatures as evidence at the presence of witness"
For information, the “current apartment” is in Thailand but there is also a house in England. There is no other Will and the Crown will inherit if there is a partial intestacy.
I don’t believe that (under English rules of interpretation) this leaves property outside the country whose laws apply to the interpretation of the document. “Whatsoever and wheresoever” or equivalents are requirements under English law. But perhaps Thai rules of interpretation are different, and so you should seek advice from a Thai lawyer.
If that doesn’t help, you can ask the Treasury whether they will exercise their discretion.
It says “at the presence of witness”. If there is only one it wouldn’t be a valid English Will. If it is valid in Thailand and was executed in Thailand my feeling is it is meant to deal with Thai property only but, as Julian says, I would enquire what TSol’s position would be.
I think the meaning is clear, and if there is only one named beneficiary you can ignore the bit about proportions, with all assets going to the single beneficiary. The current rules of interpretation take a less literal approach. So I would Apply for English probate. However you need to ascertain the domicile to establish which law of succession applies to the realty and personality.
Oddly enough a will does not need to be dated to be valid , something I discovered when writing a book about wills many years ago. Having said that the absence of a date does, of course, raise issues such as whether it revokes any other will located and whether it was made during a period that the testator had capacity.
The issue you identified is surely that the absence of a date means that any other will produced (or the later of any other dated wills produced) will defeat the undated will, as the undated will cannot be said to have revoked the dated will.
The fact that a will is dated, does not trump an undated will.
It will be necessary to ascertain when the undated will was actually executed and, if it is the latest will an affidavit of due execution will likely be required from one of the witnesses.
The lack of a date does not affect the effect of any revocation clause.
In my situation the existence of a Beneficiary in a Will who had not been born at the time of the previous (dated) Will, evidenced the fact the undated Will revoked the dated Will.
I agree that there may be circumstances such as those mentioned which help to determine the chronological order of two wills. But I am intrigued by the idea that an affidavit by only one witness of the date of signature would be sufficient.