Author
Abstract
A will is executed once and read once, and the two moments are usually years apart. Everything in this paper happens in between. A validly executed will is not a system that tracks its maker's life; it is a snapshot of one afternoon of it. English law then operates on the snapshot mechanically as events occur. Marriage revokes the whole instrument (Wills Act 1837, s.18). Divorce does something stranger: the will survives, but every gift to and appointment of the former spouse takes effect as if that spouse had died on the day the marriage ended (s.18A). The sale of a specifically gifted asset deletes the gift, with no compensation from the proceeds (ademption). The death of a beneficiary before the testator deletes another gift by lapse, subject to a statutory rescue that reaches only the testator's own descendants (s.33). None of these mechanisms asks what the testator would have wanted. Each executes a rule, and the leading cases are a catalogue of outcomes nobody in the story intended — including one in which the testator's chosen charity lost its gift because his former wife had failed to die, and the estate went on intestacy instead. The paper states each mechanism precisely, maps the eleven household continuity events of the companion taxonomy (SIG-WP-2026-02) to their testamentary consequences, and examines the mechanism by which "I have a will" — a true sentence — quietly terminates the attention the instrument still needs. It then sets out the discipline that follows: a short trigger list, a periodic floor, and a defined inspection, satisfiable with a diary and an ordinary solicitor's appointment. The reform context sharpens the argument. The Law Commission's 2025 recommendation to abolish revocation by marriage would, if enacted, remove the one mechanism that at least fails towards the formal spouse or civil partner and, where there are issue, the issue — and leave the pre-marriage will standing. The draft Bill contains a power to save a badly executed will. It contains nothing to save a perfectly executed one that has outlived its facts.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:rtzks_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.