PVL 2602 Exam Pack MUST READ.

ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 2 – 2015 1. Xander and Wanda were married out of community of property with inclusion of the accrual system. They had three adult sons, Ben, Charl and David. David was predeceased. Before his death, David had been married to Zola. David and Zola had a child, Elize. David also had a child Frank from a previous relationship with Petro. David and Petro had never been married. Zola had an adult child, Gavin, from a previous marriage. Xander dies intestate and the value of his estate amounts to R900 000. Xander's estate has to pay R100 000 accrual to Wanda. Calculate how Xander's estate is going to devolve, giving reasons for your calculations. (10) Statutory amount = R250 000. i) Xander (X)'s estate has to pay R100 000 to Wanda (W) in terms of matrimonial property law (the accrual that she was entitled to). X's intestate estate available for distribution therefore amounts to R800 000 (R900 000 – R100 000 = R800 000). ii) X had a spouse and children - therefore section 1(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 applies in terms of which the spouse inherits either a child's share or R250 000 (the statutory amount) whichever is the greater and the children share the rest of the estate equally. iii) A child's share is calculated by dividing the value of the intestate estate by the number of children of the deceased iv) who have either survived him, v) or have predeceased him but are survived by their descendants, vi) plus the number of surviving spouses (in this case only W). vii) To calculate the child's share we therefore count Ben (B), Charl (C) and David (D) (since D left children to represent him) plus W (B, C, D en W = 4), and divide R800 000 by 4. This means a child's share amounts to R200 000. viii) Since a child’s share of R200 000 is less than the statutory amount of R250 000, W inherits the amount of R250 000. ix) After X inherits R250 000, R550 000 remains in X’s intestate estate to be divided equally amongst his children. X's children, B, C and D (represented by his children), inherit the residue in equal shares (R550 000 ÷ 3 = R183 333). x) B and C each inherit R183 333 and E and F inherit D's share equally, each inheriting R91 666. xi) F may inherit even though he was born of unmarried parents, because in terms of the Intestate Succession Act no difference should be made between children born of married or unmarried parents. xii) Gavin (G) may not inherit from X, because he is not a blood relation of D but a stepchild. 2. Tom committed suicide in 2014. He left a letter in which he wrote that he revoked all previous wills and left all his possessions to his two children from his first marriage, Susan and Dennis. This letter was only signed with Tom's signature. It appears that he had executed a valid will two years previously in which he had left all his possessions to his second wife and nothing to his children. Answer questions (a) and (b) on this set of facts. a) Is the letter that Tom left behind a valid will? Give a reason for your answer. (2) The will is not a valid will (1) because it was not signed by two competent witnesses (1) b) Susan and Dennis approach you for advice. They want to know if there is any way that they can inherit. Give a brief discussion of the problem with reference only to most recent and most authoritative case law. (Discuss the current legal position without discussing the previous split in opinion that existed.) (13) i) Susan and Dennis will have to approach the Court for an order in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. ii) Section 2(3) gives the High Court the power to order the Master to accept a document iii) which does not comply with the execution or amendment formalities, as a valid will iv) if it is satisfied that the testator intended the defectively executed document to be his or her will or an amendment to it. v) This power of the Court is often referred to as the power of condonation and section 2(3) is often called the "rescue provision". vi) If the requirements of section 2(3) are satisfied, the Court makes an order directing the Master to accept the will or amendment as if it were validly executed. The provisions of section 2(3) are peremptory. In other words, if the requirements of the section are satisfied by proof on a balance of probabilities, then the Court has no discretion but must make an order directing the Master to accept the document as a valid will. vii) Meaning of “drafted or executed”: In Bekker v Naude 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA), viii) the Supreme Court of Appeal held that a narrow interpretation should be given to these words in terms of which the testator should have personally drafted the document. This aspect is not an issue in our set of facts as it is clear that the testator attempted to execute the document by signing it. ix) The court has to be satisfied that the testator intended the document to be his 6 or her will. This requirement comes into play in the current set of facts. x) To establish intention it must be shown that the particular document was, at the time it was made, intended to be the final expression of the deceased’s wishes, not subject to change except by a new will or codicil. xi) According to the SCA, this required degree of finality is not present in the case of written instructions, or letters of instruction, given by the deceased to an attorney, bank, or other advisor, because the testator does not intend that the instructions themselves should serve as his or her will. Rather, the testator intends that a further document will be produced for his or her approval, based on the written instructions. xii) It is, however, vital to pay attention to the intention of the testator with respect to the writing, not merely to the form that the writing takes. xiii) Consequently, in Van Wetten v Bosch, xiv) a section 2(3) order was granted with respect to a letter addressed to the testator’s attorney containing instructions for the drafting of a will. What distinguished this case from Ex parte Maurice was that the testator had left the letter in the possession of a friend with instructions that the letter was only to be given to the testator’s attorney if something should happen to the testator which the Court interpreted as a reference to the testator’s death. Since it would be futile to give instructions for the drafting of a will after one’s death, the Court concluded that the letter itself was intended to function as the final expression of the testator’s wishes, notwithstanding that it was in the form of a letter of instructions. 3. Write a note on the capacity of a beneficiary under a will to inherit from the testator if the beneficiary has caused the death of the testator. Refer to case law to substantiate your answer. (5) i) A beneficiary who is responsible for the death of the deceased or the coniunctissimi (people closely related to the deceased) of the deceased is precluded from inheriting either testate or intestate from the deceased (Ex parte Steenkamp and Steenkamp 1952 (1) SA 744 (T)). ii) The rule precluding a killer from inheriting finds application in the Roman-Dutch law maxim, de bloedige hand neemt geen erf (literally meaning the bloody hand takes no inheritance). iii) The operation of the bloedige hand maxim is absolute. It does not matter whether the deceased was killed intentionally or negligently. iv) Thus a beneficiary who commits culpable homicide (the unlawful and negligent killing of a human being) is as equally disqualified from inheriting as a person who commits murder (the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being). See Casey v The Master, 1992 (4) SA 505 (N) at 507G. v) Someone responsible for the death of the deceased or the coniunctissimi of the deceased will not automatically be disqualified from inheriting and the Master does not have the authority to disqualify him or her. An order of court is required in this regard. ASSIGNMENT 2 – SEMESTER 2 – 2015 1. Succession can take place by virtue of … [1] the law. [2] a will. [3] an antenuptial contract. [4] all of the above. (2) 2. From what age may a person be a witness to a will? [1] 12 [2] 14 [3] 16 [4] 18 (2) 24 3. At what age does a person attain testamentary capacity? [1] 21 [2] 18 [3] 16 [4] 14 (2) 4. Xavier and Yoda were brothers. They were killed in an accident when the light aeroplane in which they were travelling collided with a mountain. Their bodies were only found weeks after the accident. A medical doctor could not determine whether they survived the crash or were killed instantaneously. Xavier was the eldest of the two. He left a will in which he left his whole estate of half a million rand to his brother Yoda. Yoda died intestate. Yoda’s only possession was his Suzuki motorcycle. Xavier and Yoda were survived by their parents, Maggie and Fred, their sister, Sally and Yoda’s ex-wife, Gina, who divorced Yoda two years before the accident. Who will inherit the money and the motorcycle? [1] Gina will inherit the money and the motorcycle. [2] Maggie and Fred will inherit the money and Gina will inherit the motorcycle. [3] Maggie, Fred and Sally will inherit the money and the motorcycle. [4] Maggie and Fred will inherit the money and the motorcycle. (2) 5. In 2009 a testator, a very frail old man, made a one page will in which he left his estate to his children. He signed the will with his mark in the presence of two witnesses and his attorney, one Johnson. The witnesses signed the will with their signatures immediately below the testator's signature. The attorney, Johnson, then signed the will. Because the page on which the will was typed did not have enough space, he wrote the certificate required by section 2(1)(a)(v) on a second page which he then attached to the will. In the certificate, Johnson stated that the testator was known to him and that the will was the will of the testator. He then signed the certificate: “AP Johnson, attorney-at-law”. According to Radley v Stopforth 1977 (2) SA 516 (A) this will is invalid because … [1] the attorney did not follow the exact wording of section 2(1)(a)(v). [2] the attorney did not use the specimen certificate provided in the Wills Act 7 of 1953. [3] the attorney did not indicate his office as that of “commissioner of oaths”. [4] the certificate should have been attached immediately below the signatures of the testator and the witnesses and not on a new page. (2) 6. In Kidwell v The Master1983 (1) SA 509 (E) the will was invalid because ... [1] the commissioner of oaths did not attach the required certificate. [2] the testator’s signature appeared 9 cm below the end of the writing of the will. [3] the witnesses were not both present when the testator signed his will. [4] the testator lacked the necessary testamentary capacity. (2) 7. In which manner did the testator revoke his first will in the case of Pienaar v Master of the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein 2011 (6) SA 338 (SCA)? [1] The second will impliedly revoked the first one, because its provisions were inconsistent with that of the first will. [2] The second will contained an express revocation clause. [3] It was presumed that the testator had