A judge has cautioned against downloading templates of wills from the internet which, she said, is an “extremely unsafe” method for ensuring one’s intentions are carried out after death.
Ms Justice Siobhán Stack said there are examples of solicitor-drafted wills causing difficulties of interpretation, but such difficulties are “much more likely to arise in the case of a home-made will”.
She urged members of the public to make a will with professional advice and to update it from time to time.
The judge made the comments when ruling that the will of William John Murphy, late of Coill Dubh, Naas, Co Kildare, was not void for uncertainty, despite the difficulties of interpreting it.
Apple MacBook Pro M4 review: A great option, but only if you actually need the power of the Pro
Why I’m happy not to be an alpha male
Dave Hannigan: Katie Taylor’s presence lends a modicum of dignity to sporting farrago
The Music Quiz: Harry Styles sings about what type of restaurant on his 2022 album Harry’s House?
However, she said, the use of the internet-sourced template “significantly reduced” the assets available for distribution to the beneficiaries under the will, as, even if these proceedings seeking its interpretation were not brought, the estate’s executor would most likely have needed to bring a summons questioning its construction.
Mr Murphy died in November 2021 a bachelor without living children. He left a house and surrounding lands worth about €335,000 and some €23,000 in a credit union, €298 of which is for distribution under the will.
His brother Brendan Murphy was named as executor of his estate and was the defendant in the action brought by three named beneficiaries: Adrienne Goodwin, Patricia Kennedy and Martin Kennedy, who contended that the will was hopelessly confusing, contradictory and void in whole or in part for uncertainty, the judge said.
The plaintiffs, who are nieces and a nephew of the deceased, sought the court’s interpretation of the will, whose valid execution was not challenged.
They were named alongside six other niece and nephew beneficiaries under the “additional provisions” section of the will, which provided for “any monies” to be divided among the nine “once my funeral expenses are paid in full”.
A clause in the will stated that any beneficiary who contests the will in any court shall not then be entitled to any benefits under it, is likely void as being contrary to public policy, said Ms Justice Stack. However, she added, there appears to be nothing available for distribution to the plaintiffs, so this question does not need to be determined.
Another niece, Fiona Murphy, who is the daughter of the executor, told the court the deceased wanted to make a will and she asked him to go to a solicitor, but he refused. He asked for her assistance so she searched online and found a company providing online will templates for a fee.
She said she filled it out in line with his instructions. This included leaving to her his house and adjoining three fields, which were next to land where she lived for more than 20 years.
Ms Murphy claimed the deceased was fond of her daughter’s horse and wanted it to have use of the lands. He also wanted to ensure the land would remain in the Murphy family name, she said.
The will was witnessed by two of her sister’s friends who were acquainted with the deceased, she said. She later asked him again to seek a lawyer but he refused, Ms Murphy added.
The judge noted that if the deceased had left no will his estate would have been divided into four equal shares, with his three surviving siblings each getting a quarter of the estate and the final quarter divided between the children of his predeceased brother.
Dealing with the plaintiffs’ application, Ms Justice Stack said no ambiguity arose from certain blank spaces and the use of the plural possessive pronoun “their” where only one beneficiary was named.
It was also her view that it was clear that the phrase “any monies” should refer to the €298 left in the credit union which “will obviously have been dissipated by payment of the funeral expenses”. There is “no basis” for extending the phrase to include the house and land, which fall to be distributed under other clauses, she held.
More difficult to interpret was that one clause evidently purported to create a residuary gift for Fiona Murphy, while another, headed “wipeout provision”, “quite clearly leaves 100 per cent of the residue” of the estate to her daughter, said the judge.
The phrase “wipeout provision” does not exist in Irish, English or Welsh law, said the judge, so she turned to understand the natural and ordinary meaning of the wording.
She believed it referenced a potential death of a recipient and meant that Fiona Murphy’s daughter was to inherit the residue of the estate if Fiona Murphy predeceased him. If she is wrong on that, she said the admissible extrinsic evidence established that the deceased intended this outcome.
The judge said she believes the interpretations in her judgment will allow the executor to proceed to distribute the estate. However, she will hear from the parties if he requires specific answers to further questions he posed in reply to the plaintiffs’ case.
