Many couples simultaneously create wills that have identical or almost identical terms. These wills are commonly referred to as “mirror will” and are extremely common. But the mutual will goes beyond the will of the mirror: not only are the wills often substantially similar, but beyond that, there is an agreement between individuals who make the will (which is not necessarily reflected in the wills themselves) that the will does not change. We check whether mutual will is desirable. Mutual will may be a possible solution to this conundrum, but not without their own tricky questions. In Olins/Walters [2009] 2 WLR 1 C.A.[5], the Court of Appeal held: Although it is necessary to show mutual will, that there is clear and satisfactory evidence of a contract between the deceased, it is legally sufficient that the contract provides that in exchange for a deceased who agrees to make a will in a certain form, he does not revoke it without notice to the other deceased. , he would also make a will in some form and agreed not to revoke it without notice at the first erblasser. Once such a contract has been concluded, the equity will place constructive confidence in the deceased survivor not to cede ownership in any other way. There should be no more detailed contractual terms, since the remedy is not based on the actual performance of contractual obligations, but on the performance of the trust, and sufficient expression of the intentions of the parties is sufficient to lay the groundwork for this fair duty. In the case, it was also found that the fair duty of the trust, when established, was not deferred for the deceased survivor after the death of the first, only to take effect after the death of the second or last deceased, when the property or what remained to him fell into the hands of his personal representatives. It is the agreement not to revoke the terms of the will that is essential to establishing mutual will.

Comments are closed.