Re Goodchild
Mutual wills are binding only where there was an agreement between the testators that the wills would not be revoked, not merely a common intention.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Goodchild made identical wills, each leaving everything to the other, and then to their son. Mrs Goodchild died first, and Mr Goodchild inherited her estate. He then remarried and made a new will in favour of his second wife. After his death, the son claimed that the wills were mutual wills, so that his father had been bound not to change his will.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the wills were not mutual wills. Leggatt LJ said that, for mutual wills to be binding, there must be a contract between the two testators that the wills would not be revoked, and not merely a common intention or expectation that the property would go to the son. The evidence showed that Mrs Goodchild believed that her husband would leave the property to the son, but there was no agreement binding him to do so. However, the son was given financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Related cases on secret trusts and mutual wills
- Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] AC 318
- Re Boyes (1884) 26 Ch D 531
- Re Cleaver [1981] 1 WLR 939
- Re Gardner (No 2) [1923] 2 Ch 230
- Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch), [2002] WTLR 849
- Kasperbauer v Griffith [2000] WTLR 333
- Re Keen [1937] Ch 236
- McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL 82
Studying equity and trusts? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
