The Student Room Group

just a quick question on

In equity and wills, what happens when the beneficiary changes i.e a leaves something for b in their will but before the will is in effect b no longer exists
Depends on who or what B is.
Reply 2
As the person above said, it depends on who the person b is

Maybe this doc will help?
thanks very much for the replies. What if b was an organisation that was dissolved. Would this change anything?
Original post by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
thanks very much for the replies. What if b was an organisation that was dissolved. Would this change anything?


Charitable or non-charitable?
non-charitable
Then the gift will lapse into residue, in the absence of some other saving provision in the will such as an accruer clause. If the non-charitable organisation was the residuary legatee then there will be a partial intestacy.
Original post by Forum User
Then the gift will lapse into residue, in the absence of some other saving provision in the will such as an accruer clause. If the non-charitable organisation was the residuary legatee then there will be a partial intestacy.


thanks very much. are there any cases in which this has happened?
??
Original post by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
thanks very much. are there any cases in which this has happened?


Where the organisation is an unincorporated association - re Recher's Will Trusts.

Where it is a company, no idea, I can't imagine people leave money to non-charitable companies in their wills too often, still less that those companies happen to have been dissolved. I have no idea (and this is getting really technical to the point that you need a specialist lawyer) but perhaps it is possible to restore a company to the register to receive such a gift.

It might be better to just state what the problem is (unless it was a purely hypothetical question ab initio).
Original post by Forum User
Where the organisation is an unincorporated association - re Recher's Will Trusts.

Where it is a company, no idea, I can't imagine people leave money to non-charitable companies in their wills too often, still less that those companies happen to have been dissolved. I have no idea (and this is getting really technical to the point that you need a specialist lawyer) but perhaps it is possible to restore a company to the register to receive such a gift.

It might be better to just state what the problem is (unless it was a purely hypothetical question ab initio).


a provision in Jeremy's will states: "I leave my residuary estate to the communist party of great britain absolutely" Since Jeremy's death and befre the execution of the will, the cpgb has merged with the communist party of the united kingdom. Advise he executor of Jeremy's will
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
a provision in Jeremy's will states: "I leave my residuary estate to the communist party of great britain absolutely" Since Jeremy's death and befre the execution of the will, the cpgb has merged with the communist party of the united kingdom. Advise he executor of Jeremy's will


I was operating under the incorrect assumption that the beneficiary had ceased to exist before the testator died. So you can safely ignore everything I wrote above.

I am pretty sure (but know no cases on it) that if a human beneficiary dies before the estate is distributed, the beneficiary's estate receives the legacy. I assume (but know less than nothing about any authority) that the same would be true about other organisations, in which case the CPUK would take in your example assuming that the gift to CPGB would have been valid if it had still existed (which assumption you are probably expected not to assume but to discuss in your answer).

Sorry I couldn't be more help :frown:
Original post by Forum User
I was operating under the incorrect assumption that the beneficiary had ceased to exist before the testator died. So you can safely ignore everything I wrote above.

I am pretty sure (but know no cases on it) that if a human beneficiary dies before the estate is distributed, the beneficiary's estate receives the legacy. I assume (but know less than nothing about any authority) that the same would be true about other organisations, in which case the CPUK would take in your example assuming that the gift to CPGB would have been valid if it had still existed (which assumption you are probably expected not to assume but to discuss in your answer).

Sorry I couldn't be more help :frown:


thanks and don't worry about it. Thats at least pointed me in the right direction. Very much appreciated. I have to ask though. Does that mean that although the 'absolute' word insists that the estate will be solely for cpgb, cpuk can still contest the fact they are eligible?
Original post by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
thanks and don't worry about it. Thats at least pointed me in the right direction. Very much appreciated. I have to ask though. Does that mean that although the 'absolute' word insists that the estate will be solely for cpgb, cpuk can still contest the fact they are eligible?


I would have thought that the word 'absolutely' was more relevant to the question whether the gift to CPGB was valid - ie because the validity of gifts to unincorporated associations sometimes turns on whether there is an accretion to the associations funds or a trust for the purposes of the association. An 'absolute gift' is more likely to be construed as the former, I would have though, in which case it is more likely to be valid.

I don't see it as relevant to the second question*. I am more or less assuming that delay in the execution of the will doesn't matter** - ie if there had been no delay then CPGB would already have had the money and so CPUK would have received it when they merged. The position ought to be the same notwithstanding the delay.

*If anything, 'absolutely' means that the bequest is less likely to fall into residue, doesn't it? If there was a trust then there might be an argument that the dissolution of CPGB led to a resulting trust in favour of As estate. That is not even a possible construction where there is an absolute gift.

** Surely that must be right even though I know nothing of the administration of estates. Otherwise an executor who was also the residuary legatee would be incentivised to delay distributing the estate as long as possible in the hopes that the beneficiaries die / are dissolved...
Original post by Forum User
I would have thought that the word 'absolutely' was more relevant to the question whether the gift to CPGB was valid - ie because the validity of gifts to unincorporated associations sometimes turns on whether there is an accretion to the associations funds or a trust for the purposes of the association. An 'absolute gift' is more likely to be construed as the former, I would have though, in which case it is more likely to be valid.

I don't see it as relevant to the second question*. I am more or less assuming that delay in the execution of the will doesn't matter** - ie if there had been no delay then CPGB would already have had the money and so CPUK would have received it when they merged. The position ought to be the same notwithstanding the delay.

*If anything, 'absolutely' means that the bequest is less likely to fall into residue, doesn't it? If there was a trust then there might be an argument that the dissolution of CPGB led to a resulting trust in favour of As estate. That is not even a possible construction where there is an absolute gift.

** Surely that must be right even though I know nothing of the administration of estates. Otherwise an executor who was also the residuary legatee would be incentivised to delay distributing the estate as long as possible in the hopes that the beneficiaries die / are dissolved...


thanks very much though It's still a little vague. how would you go about answering a question like that?
Original post by ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
thanks very much though It's still a little vague. how would you go about answering a question like that?


Start by looking up authorities for the first question - would an absolute testamentary gift to the CPGB be valid (ie ignore for the moment that it has merged with CPUK before the estate was distributed). Any textbook on Equity will have a chapter on unincorporated associations and tell you that there are various ways of construing gifts to UIs (including that it is void). Decide which of the possibilities is most likely here. [I think that it would be construed as an accretion to the funds of CPGB under the 'contract holding' theory].

Then the second question - what is the effect of the merger of CPGB with CPUK. That will necessarily depend on your answer to the first question. If you thought the answer was that the gift to CPGB was void, then obviously the merger with CPUK can't save it. Otherwise you need to find some authority that tells you what happens if an organisation ceases to exist after Ts death but before distribution of the estate. [I assume the answer is that the same thing happens as if the will had been distributed immediately]. If that is correct, then what will happen still depends on what you decided about the first question. If there is a gift to the members of CPGB beneficially in equal shares, then the merger with CPUK is irrelevant and the property belongs to the members of CPGB. If there is an accretion to the funds of CPGB then, although we know nothing of the terms of the merger, the only reasonable possibility seems to be that those funds accrue to CPUK.
Original post by Forum User
Start by looking up authorities for the first question - would an absolute testamentary gift to the CPGB be valid (ie ignore for the moment that it has merged with CPUK before the estate was distributed). Any textbook on Equity will have a chapter on unincorporated associations and tell you that there are various ways of construing gifts to UIs (including that it is void). Decide which of the possibilities is most likely here. [I think that it would be construed as an accretion to the funds of CPGB under the 'contract holding' theory].

Then the second question - what is the effect of the merger of CPGB with CPUK. That will necessarily depend on your answer to the first question. If you thought the answer was that the gift to CPGB was void, then obviously the merger with CPUK can't save it. Otherwise you need to find some authority that tells you what happens if an organisation ceases to exist after Ts death but before distribution of the estate. [I assume the answer is that the same thing happens as if the will had been distributed immediately]. If that is correct, then what will happen still depends on what you decided about the first question. If there is a gift to the members of CPGB beneficially in equal shares, then the merger with CPUK is irrelevant and the property belongs to the members of CPGB. If there is an accretion to the funds of CPGB then, although we know nothing of the terms of the merger, the only reasonable possibility seems to be that those funds accrue to CPUK.


Thank you very much. I'll try to use that and see what I come up with. Again it's very much appreciated

Quick Reply