This post has been contributed by Amanda Taylor, University of London Teaching Fellow for Equity and Trusts.
Learning about Equity and Trusts obviously involves the understanding of how and why a Trust is formed. The reasoning can be to save tax or to ensure that specific people benefit from an estate. Many trusts are written into a will so will only commence once the testator has died.
Equity and Trusts however does not sit by itself in law. Law is everywhere and many people, lay or law students, are often more versed in, for instance, Criminal law because they probably hear more about crime through watching the television.
This case shows how crime is considered when it comes to benefitting from an estate of a deceased person. It also shows how the writing of a will may result in very unexpected results.
Withers Trust Corporation v Estate of Hannah Goodman [2023] EWHC 2780 CH
This case was heard in late 2023 and it was one where the death of Mrs Goodman was considered. Her husband, Mr Berry, was thought to have assisted her death.
There is a general rule called the forfeiture rule that prevents anyone who unlawfully kills a person being able to benefit from the deceased’s estate. The rule is based on common sense. However, Section 2 of The Forfeiture Act 1982 does allow the courts the power to modify the general rule. The reasons for the modification have to be clear and give consideration to the specific facts of the case.
The death of Mrs Goodman was expected as she was dying from lung cancer. Her decline was a long one and she was, by all accounts from her medics, suffering. There was also evidence that she wanted to end her life. She was not physically able to do anything.
Her husband reported her death and later tried to kill himself. He wrote that he had reluctantly helped his wife and that he was heartbroken.
Two years later he did succeed in taking his own life.
The reason the courts got involved was due to a large amount of money that Mrs Goodman wished to go to a charitable foundation should her husband not be able to inherit. Mr Berry’s will likewise wanted to benefit a charitable foundation with similar aims to the one mentioned by his wife.
The problems were twofold: a) that the forfeiture rule meant that Mr Berry would not have been able to inherit his wife’s estate and b) his wife’s will had not been worded very well and so it meant that if her estate went to the charitable foundation she had mentioned there would be an enormous amount of tax payable.
If though, Mr Berry was able to inherit his wife’s estate his will was worded well and the money from his estate, including what he inherited from his wife’s estate, would go tax free to the charity.
The Court looked at all the available facts and concluded the likelihood was that Mr Berry had assisted his wife’s demise, but that the probability that he had done so was merely because he was helping his wife carry out her wishes. It was not something he had wanted to do and he was heartbroken by being left alone. The courts therefore concluded that he probably would not have been charged with murder.