Mirror wills held to be binding in case of sisters

The High Court has held that mirror wills made by two elderly sisters many years ago were binding on the survivor's estate, even though there was no documentary proof of mutuality.
The case - Charles v Fraser EWHC Civ 2154 (Ch) - is only the third successfully contested mutual wills case in the last 80 years.
It concerned two sisters, Ethel Willson and Mabel Cook, who executed mirror wills in 1991. Each left their entire estate to the other along with a statement that the second to die would leave the remaining assets to certain of their friends and family.
Mabel died in 1995 and all assets passed to Ethel, who survived until 2006, by which time she was 92. It then transpired that two months before her death she had executed a second will leaving the GBP400,000 estate to her hairdresser Jill Fraser, who was also executor of the new will.
The claimants - who were, of course, the disinherited family - asked the High Court to exclude the new will. They asserted that the sisters' 1991 wills were mutual and thus binding on the survivor, even though no formal written statement to this effect could be found.
The family declared that the sisters had often stated orally that they regarded their agreement as binding.
Deputy judge Jonathan Gaunt found for the claimants, on the basis of "considerable evidence" that there was a formal agreement between Ethel and Mabel.
He criticised the drafter of the 1991 wills for not explicitly recording whether the wills were meant to be mutual.
"The case is a salutary reminder to practitioners to take instructions from testators who make mirror wills about whether the survivor is free to revoke his or her will, particularly in cases where each testator wants his share of a combined estate to pass to different beneficiaries", says PLC's Private Client bulletin.
Mrs Fraser will now have to return the assets, probably by accepting a charge on her home which she bought with the inheritance last year.


(courtesy of STEP)