Letsekga v The Master: Notes of changes that the test intends to make to his will in the future, does not justify revoking part of the will. Henwick v The Master: Sec 2A was refused, because there was insufficient proof test wished to revoke his will, rather instructions from his wife. Pause for reflection pg 93. Sec 2A cannot be used to give legal effect to an oral revocation with relation to Sec 2A (a) + (b). Will a copy of the test’s will suffice? Webster v The Master: Test had made changes on a copy of his will to show his attorney how to change original. Sec 2A(a): cannot be revoked if chang3esmade on copy, not original. Sec 2A(b): can be revoked according to Sec 2A(b). Marais v The Master (study) Court interpreting the common law requirement for the revocation of wills, treated acts of symbolic destruction carried out on a copy of the will as sufficient to revoke a will, because they showed what the test would have done to his original will, had it been in his possession. Courts have more leeway when they follow common law rules, than the statutory provisions. Stature, a “will” is : original and not the copy, referred to in Sec 2A (a) + (b). Study Oliver case pg 94 and 95 STUDY UNIT 7 CAPACITY TO INHERIT PERSONS CAPABLE OF INHERITING: NATURAL PERSONS Every natural person is capable of acquiring a vested right to an inheritance. Don’t confuse vested right with right to enjoy inheritance. MAJOR BENEFICIARY WITH SOUND MIND WITH LEGAL STANDING: A major, of sound mind, who is not insolvent and does not repudiate an inheritance will acquire a vested right to an unconditional inheritance and exercise unrestricted enjoyment of the inheritance. MINOR BENEFICIARY: Has capacity to inherit, but ability to enjoy inheritance is restricted. Inherited property will be administered for the benefit of the minor by the minor’s guardian, with the office of the Master of HC exercising supervisory function.
Letsekga v The Master: Notes of changes that the test intends to make to his will in the future, does not justify revoking part of the will. Henwick v The Master: Sec 2A was refused, because there was insufficient proof test wished to revoke his will, rather instructions from his wife. Pause for reflection pg 93. Sec 2A cannot be used to give legal effect to an oral revocation with relation to Sec 2A (a) + (b). Will a copy of the test’s will suffice? Webster v The Master: Test had made changes on a copy of his will to show his attorney how to change original. Sec 2A(a): cannot be revoked if chang3esmade on copy, not original. Sec 2A(b): can be revoked according to Sec 2A(b). Marais v The Master (study) Court interpreting the common law requirement for the revocation of wills, treated acts of symbolic destruction carried out on a copy of the will as sufficient to revoke a will, because they showed what the test would have done to his original will, had it been in his possession. Courts have more leeway when they follow common law rules, than the statutory provisions. Stature, a “will” is : original and not the copy, referred to in Sec 2A (a) + (b). Study Oliver case pg 94 and 95 STUDY UNIT 7 CAPACITY TO INHERIT PERSONS CAPABLE OF INHERITING: NATURAL PERSONS Every natural person is capable of acquiring a vested right to an inheritance. Don’t confuse vested right with right to enjoy inheritance. MAJOR BENEFICIARY WITH SOUND MIND WITH LEGAL STANDING: A major, of sound mind, who is not insolvent and does not repudiate an inheritance will acquire a vested right to an unconditional inheritance and exercise unrestricted enjoyment of the inheritance. MINOR BENEFICIARY: Has capacity to inherit, but ability to enjoy inheritance is restricted. Inherited property will be administered for the benefit of the minor by the minor’s guardian, with the office of the Master of HC exercising supervisory function.
PVL2602-summaries.docx