Timeline for Is a will provision naming "my wife" as a beneficiary before marriage valid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2022 at 19:12 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @DaleM Obviously, someone has to have the capacity to be married (18+, not currently married, not too closely related). Also, of course, it has to be mutual, Sella would have to testify under oath that she viewed them as married at the time, for there to be a common law marriage (given what we know of her character, that wouldn't be problem). | |
| Feb 28, 2022 at 15:59 | comment | added | David Siegel | @Dale was this comment meant as a reply to this comment by ohwilleke? It is not quite cler wha the referent of that is in "I don’t think that can be right" | |
| Feb 27, 2022 at 9:55 | comment | added | richardb | @DaleM If your last comment was addressed at me: section 18 (3) of the Wills Act 1837 may apply. Where it appears from a will that at the time it was made the testator was expecting to be married to a particular person and that he intended that the will should not be revoked by the marriage, the will shall not be revoked by his marriage to that person. One could easily argue that either way though, which is why I called it sloppy wording. | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 22:27 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | I don’t think that can be right, I can write a will today that says “my wife, Taylor Swift”. I can’t see that that makes me married to the pop star. | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 18:12 | comment | added | richardb | Using the term "my wife, Sella Fenwick" might possibly have the effect of the will not being invalidated by the marriage, had it occurred. Although, absent children, the wife would otherwise become the sole benefiary. Sloppy wording though. | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 0:25 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @DavidSiegel Cohabitation is not required. The statement in the Will would probably establish "holding themselves out" as married, and the requirement that the parties view themselves as married at the time. | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 0:17 | comment | added | David Siegel | "such a statement would probably suffice to cause them to be married on the day the will was written" I am surprised. I thought a common-law marriage required that a couple live together, and "hold themselves out" as married, that is that the community understanding was that a marriage existed. In the novel they were not sharing living space, nor did they describe themselves to others in any way but "about to be married" or words to that effect. Perhaps that should be another question. | |
| Feb 26, 2022 at 0:12 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Feb 26, 2022 at 0:07 | history | answered | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |