Taylor and Others v Taylor and Others (257/11) [2011] ZAECPEHC 48; 2012 (3) SA 219 (ECP) (15 November 2011)

Taylor and Others v Taylor and Others (257/11) [2011] ZAECPEHC 48; 2012 (3) SA 219 (ECP) (15 November 2011)

The court found that the language of the 'wish list' was predominantly discretionary, expressing the deceased's wishes for equitable distribution rather than binding instructions to amend his will. The deceased had executed a formal will seven months before his death, demonstrating awareness of the legal formalities required for testamentary effect. There was no evidence that the deceased intended the 'wish list' to have legal force as an amendment, nor that circumstances had changed to prompt such an intention. The court concluded that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased intended the 'wish list' to amend his will, and therefore, the application could not succeed under...

Citation
[2011] ZAECPEHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Raymond Mark Taylor; Applicant: Lisa Ann Blain; Applicant: Zanne Elizabeth Taylor; Respondent: Hildegard Taylor; Respondent: The Master of the High Court; Respondent: Barry Paul Daisley N.O.
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2011
Case Number
257/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Griffiths, Zilwa
Legal Topics
Wills Act Section 2 3, Testamentary Intention, Amendment of Will, Estate Distribution
Civil Procedure Family and Children Wills Act Section 2 3 Testamentary Intention Amendment of Will Estate Distribution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Mark Taylor

Applicant

Lisa Ann Blain

Applicant

Zanne Elizabeth Taylor

Applicant

Hildegard Taylor

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Barry Paul Daisley N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'wish list' document drafted by the deceased was intended to be an amendment to his last will and testament as contemplated by section 2(3) of the Wills Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established the deceased's intention for the 'wish list' to have testamentary effect.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the language of the 'wish list' was predominantly discretionary, expressing the deceased's wishes for equitable distribution rather than binding instructions to amend his will. The deceased had executed a formal will seven months before his death, demonstrating awareness of the legal formalities required for testamentary effect. There was no evidence that the deceased intended the 'wish list' to have legal force as an amendment, nor that circumstances had changed to prompt such an intention. The court concluded that the applicants failed to establish that the deceased intended the 'wish list' to amend his will, and therefore, the application could not succeed under...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.