Smith v Parsons: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:47, 12 December 2014

In Smith v Parsons, an important case in South African succession law, Smith was the partner of the deceased who sought an order in terms of section 2(3) to accept the deceased’s suicide note as an amendment to the will. The deceased had validly executed a will in 2003 appointing his son, Jeremy, as his sole heir. The suicide note said that Smith could have the house they had lived in and that she had access to a bank account holding about R600,000 and the residue of his estate was to go to his son. The question before the court was whether the suicide note could constitute a codicil (amendment). The court held that the crucial question was whether the deceased intended the suicide note to be a codicil. It was held that the deceased’s intention was for the document to be a suicide note and not an amendment to his will, as the onus of proving an express intention to amend was not discharged.

References

Smith v Parsons [2010] 4 All SA 74 (SCA).

Notes

This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This article about law in South Africa is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Underlinked|date=October 2013}}
-In '''''Smith v Parsons''''', an important case in [[South African succession law]], Smith was the partner of the deceased who sought an order in terms of section 2(3) to accept the deceased’s suicide note as an amendment to the will. The deceased had validly executed a will in 2003 appointing his son, Jeremy, as his sole heir. The suicide note said that Smith could have the house they had lived in and that she had access to a bank account holding about R600,000 and the residue of his estate was to go to his son. The question before the court was whether the suicide note could constitute a codicil (amendment). The court held that the crucial question was whether the deceased intended the suicide note to be a codicil. It was held that the deceased’s intention was for the document to be a suicide note and not an amendment to his will, as the onus of proving an express intention to amend was not discharged.
+In '''''Smith v Parsons''''', an important case in [[South African succession law]], Smith was the partner of the deceased who sought an order in terms of section 2(3) to accept the deceased’s suicide note as an amendment to the will. The deceased had validly executed a will in 2003 appointing his son, Jeremy, as his sole heir. The suicide note said that Smith could have the house they had lived in and that she had access to a bank account holding about R600,000 and the residue of his estate was to go to his son. The question before the court was whether the suicide note could constitute a [[codicil (will)|codicil]] (amendment). The court held that the crucial question was whether the deceased intended the suicide note to be a codicil. It was held that the deceased’s intention was for the document to be a suicide note and not an amendment to his will, as the onus of proving an express intention to amend was not discharged.
 == See also ==