PVL2602 Assignment 1 (QUALITY ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024

This document contains workings, explanations and solutions to the PVL2602 Assignment 1 (QUALITY ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024. For assistance call or us on 0.6.8..8.1.2..0.9.3.4..... Question 1 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Buhle Baloyi, a 94-year-old retired judge, had been suffering from a prolonged respiratory infection from late 2018. In addition to this, he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and as a result, he spent most of his days in bed, as he was in severe physical pain. He was looked after by his wife, Daisy Baloyi (67 years old), who took care of his daily needs and assisted him with basic tasks such as eating and bathing. Buhle had had a will in place since 2001, in terms of which he bequeathed 50% of his estate to his wife, Daisy; 25% to his nieces and nephews; and the remaining 25% to various charitable organisations. Buhle’s condition took a turn for the worst in August 2020. He was hospitalised and placed on strong medication. During Buhle’s time in hospital, he was befriended by a nurse, Pamela (25 years old). Pamela treated Buhle with utmost kindness and told Buhle that it is “an absolute honour to care for such a great public figure.” Pamela took it upon herself to read the newspaper to Buhle every morning and told him that it is a shame that his wife does not take the time to do these little things for him given the state of his health. Pamela told the nursing staff that she adds flowers next to his bedside every morning “to brighten up his day, and to win his heart, of course!” Buhle sadly died on 16 August 2020. A handwritten piece of paper with the following words on it was found in the drawer next to his hospital bed: “I hereby revoke all previous wills and leave everything to my sweet Pamela.” It was signed by Buhle with his initials as well as by Pamela and two other nurses.You are an attorney at ERF Attorneys. Daisy consults with you on 19 August 2020, and states that she seeks to challenge the validity of Buhle’s new will. On what grounds can Daisy challenge the validity of this will? a. The fact that a beneficiary signed as a witness. b. The fact that the will lacked formalities because Buhle signed with his initials.  c. The fact that Buhle lacked volition due to undue influence. d. The fact that Buhle lacked testamentary capacity because of his advanced age. The is: The fact that Buhle lacked volition due to undue influence.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU  Question 2 Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Question 3 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Tom died intestate in 2020. Tom had four children, Ayanda, Bongani, Charlotte (adopted) and Dumi. Ayanda had 3 daughters, Eve, Fiona and Tara. Eve died in 2015. Ayanda constantly teased Charlotte about not being their sibling because she was adopted. On 15 April 2010, their argument got out of hand and Ayanda deliberately pushed Charlotte off the stairs, upon which Charlotte suffered a severe head injury and died. Charlotte was survived by her son, Siya. Ayanda was very sorry and Tom eventually forgave her. Ten years later, Tom died intestate and his estate was worth R 800 000. How will Tom’s estate devolve? a. R250 000 to Dumi, R250 000 to Bongani, R150 000 to Ayanda and R150 000 to Siya. b. R200 000 to Dumi, R200 000 to Bongani, R200 000 to Siya and R100 000 each to Fiona and Tara.  c. R250 000 to Dumi, R250 000 to Bongani, R150 000 to Siya and R75 000 each to Fiona and Tara. d. R300 000 each to Dumi and Bongani. The is: R200 000 to Dumi, R200 000 to Bongani, R200 000 to Siya and R100 000 each to Fiona and Tara. Tom died in 2018, leaving his wife Wendy, his daughter Daisy, Daisy’s minor son Fred, and Tom’s sister, Sarah. Daisy emigrated two years after Tom died. Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my house in town to my grandson, Fred, subject to the provision that while my wife, Wendy, is still alive she is entitled to stay in the house.” When did dies cedit and dies venit take place for Wendy and Fred respectively? a. For both Wendy and Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place when Wendy died. b. For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. c. For both Wendy and Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place when the testator died.  d. For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit took place at the testator’s death and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. The is: For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit took place at the testator’s death and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 4 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Question 5 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Tom’s estate is worth R900 000. In 2018, Tom’s attorney, Peter drafted a will for Tom. In this will he left R100 000 to his wife Refilwe and R400 000 each to his sister, Dina and his brother, Sean. He left the residue of the estate to Refilwe, Dina and Sean in equal shares. He nominated his friend, Fred as executor of his estate in this will. The will was signed by Tom with his signature. Dina and Fred signed as witnesses. Tom died in 2020 and was survived by Refilwe, Sean and Dina as his only living relatives. How will the estate be divided? a. Refilwe will inherit R300 000; Sean will inherit R600 000 each and the Master will not appoint Fred as executor. b. Refilwe will inherit R100 000; Dina and Sean will inherit R400 000 each and the Master will not appoint Fred as executor. c. Refilwe will inherit R100 000; Dina and Sean will inherit R400 000 each and Fred will be the executor of the estate.  d. Refilwe will inherit R300 000; Sean will inherit R600 000 and Fred will be the executor of the estate. The is: Refilwe will inherit R300 000; Sean will inherit R600 000 each and the Master will not appoint Fred as executor. Testator Tina asked her daughter-in-law, Lindiwe, to write out a will for her. Lindiwe was married to Tina’s son, Ben. Tina dictated the will and Lindiwe wrote the will in her own handwriting. In the will, Tina bequeathed R10 000 to Lindiwe and R10 000 to Ben. Furthermore, she bequeathed her house to her son, Shorty, and all her personal belongings to her daughter, Dina. Fanie, a friend of the family, was nominated as the executor of Tina’s estate. Tina signed the will. Dina’s husband, Hector, and Fanie signed the will as witnesses. Which of the beneficiaries of the will are disqualified to take a benefit under the will in terms of section 4A(1) and 4A(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953? a. Lindiwe, Dina, Fanie, Ben b. Dina, Fanie c. Lindiwe, Shorty, Dina d. Fanie, Lindiwe  The is: Lindiwe, Dina, Fanie, Ben  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 6 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Question 7 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Which case provides authority for the statement that a testator may confer on trustees the power to appoint the income and capital beneficiaries of a trust from a group of persons designated by the testator? a. Du Plessis v Strauss 1988 SA 105 (A) b. Minister of Education v Syfrets Trust Ltd 2006 (4) SA 205 (C)  c. Van Zyl v Van Zyl 1951 (3) SA 288 (A) d. Braun v Blann and Botha 1984 SA 850 (A) The is: Braun v Blann and Botha 1984 SA 850 (A) Tabitha’s valid will provides as follows: "I leave my farm to my son Xavier and my wife Victoria. The residue of my estate goes to my brother, Bobby." Xavier, who has a son, Wim, repudiates his benefit. Thabitha is survived by Victoria, Xavier, Wim and Bobby. Who will inherit the farm? a. Victoria will inherit the farm in terms of section 2C(1) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. b. Victoria will inherit the farm according to the accrual principle because Xavier and Victoria were joined by means of joinder re. c. Wim, Victoria and Bobby will inherit the farm according to intestate succession as the will is ineffective. d. Bobby will inherit the farm because it falls into the residue of the estate.  The is: Victoria will inherit the farm in terms of section 2C(1) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 8 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Question 9 Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 The difference between an "estate" and the "residue of an estate" is ... a. an estate consists of the assets and liabilities of the deceased. The residue of the estate refers to that part of the deceased's estate which remains after the payment of funeral expenses, administration costs, tax, the testator's debts, legacies and inheritances.  b. an estate consists of the assets and liabilities of the deceased. The residue of the estate refers to that part of the deceased's estate which remains after the payment of funeral expenses, administration costs, tax, the testator's debts and the legacies. c. an estate consists of the assets and liabilities of the deceased. The residue of the estate refers to that part of the deceased's estate which remains after the liabilities have been paid. d. an estate consists of the assets of the deceased. The residue of an estate consists of the liabilities of the deceased. The is: an estate consists of the assets and liabilities of the deceased. The residue of the estate refers to that part of the deceased's estate which remains after the payment of funeral expenses, administration costs, tax, the testator's debts and the legacies. The moment when a beneficiary obtains a vested right to claim delivery of a bequeathed property unconditionally, is called ... a. an unconditional bequest. b. dies cedit.  c. dies venit. d. a time clause. The is: dies cedit.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 10 Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Question 11 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 The refusal of a beneficiary to accept a benefit from a deceased’s estate is known as ... a. restitution b. adiation c. rejection d. repudiation  The is: repudiation Toby dies intestate. He is survived by his spouse Wilma, his adopted son Bruce, and son Nelson. He is also survived by his grandchildren, Clark and Patty (the children of his daughter Valeria, who died a few years previously) and Xiomara and Yvonne, the children of Nelson. Nelson repudiates his right to inherit from his father. Toby and Wilma were married out of community of property with the inclusion of the accrual system. The value of Toby’s intestate estate amounts to R1 100 000. Toby’s estate is entitled to R100 000 accrual from Wanda. How will Toby’s estate devolve? a. Wilma will inherit R600 000; Bruce will inherit R300 000; Clark and Patty will each inherit R150 000. b. Wilma will inherit R250 000; Bruce will inherit R250 000; Xiomara, Yvonne, Clark and Patty will each inherit R125 000.  c. Wilma will inherit R300 000; Bruce will inherit R300 000; Xiomara, Yvonne, Clark and Patty will each inherit R150 000. d. Wilma will inherit R500 000; Bruce will inherit R250 000; Clark and Patty will each inherit R125 000. The is: Wilma will inherit R600 000; Bruce will inherit R300 000; Clark and Patty will each inherit R150 000.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 12 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Question 13 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Tom married Jonathan in terms of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 on 29 December 2016. Tom died on 10 October 2020 and left a valid will that he had made on 7 February 2017. This will provides as follows: “I leave my entire estate to my ex-girlfriend, Sadie. To Jonathan, who cheated on me, I leave nothing.” Jonathan’s position will be as follows: a. He can institute a claim for half of Tom’s estate against Sadie. b. He can inherit Tom’s estate intestate because, in terms of the Civil Union Act, he is considered to be in the same position as a spouse.  c. He can bring an application to declare the will invalid as it is illegal to disown one’s spouse. d. He can institute a claim for his reasonable maintenance needs until his death against Tom’s estate. Your is in. The is: He can institute a claim for his reasonable maintenance needs until his death against Tom’s estate. Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave R 20 000 to my daughter, Fran. She must receive this benefit before any other benefit is paid out.” The bequest to Fran is called … a. an inheritance. b. a modus.  c. a prelagacy. d. a bequest price The is: a prelagacy.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 14 Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Question 15 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Which one of the following statements regarding the legal position of the usufructuary is ? a. The usufructuary may only alienate or mortgage the property subject to the usufruct, with the cooperation of the nude owner. b. The usufructuary is the owner of the property subject to the usufruct. c. The usufructuary has a limited real right in the property subject to the usufruct.  d. The ownership of the usufructuary is subject to a terminative condition. The is: The usufructuary has a limited real right in the property subject to the usufruct. Tandi, a widower, asked his daughter-in-law, Sally, who is married to his son, Charlie, to draft a will for him. In the will he provides that an amount of R100 000 goes to his son Charlie and that the residue of the estate is to be divided in equal shares among his three children, Bongani, Charlie and Dillon. After Sally had typed the will, Tandi signed the will in the presence of all his children and his friends, Fred and Gina. Charlie and Gina then signed the will as witnesses. When Tandi died, he was survived by his three children only and left no other relatives. His estate amounted to R400 000. Dillon and Bongani are unhappy that Charlie will inherit a greater share of the estate. Choose the scenario that is applicable in these facts if Charlie cannot afford to get a court order: a. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R200 000 if he can prove to the Master that he did not unduly influence Tandi.  b. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness and may not inherit anything from the estate. c. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R200 000 because Fred was also present when the will was signed. d. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R133 333 as his intestate share. The is: Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R133 333 as his intestate share.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 16 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Question 17 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 In Harris v Assumed Administrator Estate Macgregor 1987 (3) SA 563 (A) it was held that where a testator died leaving a valid will which at a later date became inoperative, the intestate heirs have to be determined ... a. on the date on which it becomes evident that the will has become inoperative. b. on a date to be determined by the Court.  c. on the date of the testator’s death. d. on a date to be determined by the Master. The is: on the date on which it becomes evident that the will has become inoperative. Thabang made a will in which he left his whole estate to his wife. Thabang signed the will with his signature in the presence of his two grandchildren, Sello, and Dintle. Both were fourteen years old. Thabang asked the grandchildren to sign the document. Sello signed the will with his initials and Dintle made an “X” (a cross) in the presence of the testator. They did not know that they were witnessing a will and Dintle made the “X” as a joke. This will is invalid for the following reason: a. Sello and Dintle were not competent witnesses. b. Dintle signed with a mark. c. The certificate required in terms of section 2(1)(a)(v) was not attached. d. The witnesses did not know that they are witnessing a will.  The is: Dintle signed with a mark.  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 18 Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Question 19 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Wanda was a successful business woman who owned a house and several other assets. She was married to Steven, who is currently unemployed. They had two daughters, Bea and Carla. Wanda was diagnosed with cancer and shortly thereafter she approached ABC Trust and Wills to draw up a will for her. She completed a form with the heading, “Instructions to draft a will” and indicated on the form that her estate must go to her daughters. After this visit to the trust company, her health deteriorated suddenly. She died two weeks later without having completed any further documents. The legal position is as follows: a. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will, but it can be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because she had signed it. b. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will, but it can be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because she personally drafted the instructions. c. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust and Wills is a valid will because it contains her intention about the division of her estate. d. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will and as such it cannot be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because it was not her intention that it should be her will.  The is: The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will and as such it cannot be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because it was not her intention that it should be her will. A person who has murdered the deceased, or who has murdered certain relatives of the deceased, may not inherit from the deceased. Which relatives are referred to? a. Parent, child, spouse, brother or sister b. Parent, child, spouse, brother, sister or grandparent  c. Parent, child, brother or sister d. Parent, child or spouse The is: Parent, child or spouse  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU Question 20 In Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 In which case did the court hold that three types of rectification, namely ion of clerical mistakes, the insertion of words that were left out by mistake and the deletion of words that were inserted by mistake, are allowed in our law? a. Lello v Dales 1971 (2) SA 330 (A) b. Moses v Abinader 1951 (4) SA 537 (A)  c. Van der Merwe v The Master 2010 (6) SA 544 (SCA) d. Rens v Esselen 1957 (4) SA 8 (T) Your is in. The is: Rens v Esselen 1957 (4) SA 8 (T) ◄ Assessment 1 Jump to...  Dashboard / My courses / PVL2602-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 MENU In Harris v Assumed Administrator Estate Macgregor 1987 (3) SA 563 (A) it was held that where a testator died leaving a valid will which at a later date became inoperative, the intestate heirs have to be determined ... a. on a date to be determined by the Court. b. on the date of the testator’s death. c. on the date on which it becomes evident that the will has become inoperative. d. on a date to be determined by the Master. F e e d b a c k The is: on the date on which it becomes evident that the will has become inoperative. Q u e s t i o n 2 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom died in 2018, leaving his wife Wendy, his daughter Daisy, Daisy’s minor son Fred, and Tom’s sister, Sarah. Daisy emigrated two years after Tom died. Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my farm Rietfontein to my daughter Daisy on condition that she remains in South Africa. If she leaves South Africa permanently at any point in time, the farm must go to my sister, Sarah.” When will dies cedit and dies venit take place for Daisy and Sarah respectively? a. For Daisy both dies cedit and dies venit will take place at the testator’s death; for Sarah dies cedit will take place at the testator’s death and dies venit when Daisy emigrates. b. For Daisy dies cedit will take place at the testator’s death and dies venit when she emigrates; for Sarah both dies cedit and dies venit will take place when Daisy emigrates. c. For Daisy both dies cedit and dies venit will take place at the testator’s death; for Sarah both dies cedit and dies venit will take place when Daisy emigrates. d. For both Daisy and Sarah dies cedit and dies venit will both take place at the testator’s death. F e e d b a c k The is: For Daisy both dies cedit and dies venit will take place at the testator’s death; for Sarah both dies cedit and dies venit will take place when Daisy emigrates. Q u e s t i o n 3 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Thabo’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my BMW motorbike to my friend, Frank. Frank must pay R20 000 to my brother Ben within 6 months of my death.” The bequest of the motorbike to Frank is ... a. subject to a direct substitution in favour of Ben. b. subject to a terminative time clause. c. subject to a modus. d. subject to a suspensive condition. F e e d b a c k The is: subject to a modus. Q u e s t i o n 4 Q u e s t i o n t e x t The effect of massing is that … a. the surviving testator may make a new will which conflicts with the joint will. b. the surviving testator loses the ability to revoke the joint will after adiation. c. the ultimate beneficiaries must wait until the death of the surviving testator to receive rights in respect of the estate of the surviving testator. d. the surviving testator retains complete freedom of testation. F e e d b a c k The is: the surviving testator loses the ability to revoke the joint will after adiation. Q u e s t i o n 5 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Teddy’s valid will valid will provides as follows: “I leave my house in Pretoria to my daughter, Delilah. If Delilah dies without children, the house must go to my brother Bandile after her death.” The bequest of the house to Delilah is subject to a … a. usufruct in favour of Bandile. b. direct substitution in favour of Bandile. c. modus. d. fideicommissum tacitum in favour of Delilah’s children. F e e d b a c k The is: fideicommissum tacitum in favour of Delilah’s children. Q u e s t i o n 6 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom’s estate is worth R900 000. In 2018, Tom’s attorney, Peter drafted a will for Tom. In this will he left R100 000 to his wife Refilwe and R400 000 each to his sister, Dina and his brother, Sean. He left the residue of the estate to Refilwe, Dina and Sean in equal shares. He nominated his friend, Fred as executor of his estate in this will. The will was signed by Tom with his signature. Dina and Fred signed as witnesses. Tom died in 2020 and was survived by Refilwe, Sean and Dina as his only living relatives. How will the estate be divided? a. Refilwe will inherit R100 000; Dina and Sean will inherit R400 000 each and Fred will be the executor of the estate. b. Refilwe will inherit R300 000; Sean will inherit R600 000 each and the Master will not appoint Fred as executor. c. Refilwe will inherit R300 000; Sean will inherit R600 000 and Fred will be the executor of the estate. d. Refilwe will inherit R100 000; Dina and Sean will inherit R400 000 each and the Master will not appoint Fred as executor. F e e d b a c k The is: Refilwe will inherit R300 000; Sean will inherit R600 000 each and the Master will not appoint Fred as executor. Q u e s t i o n 7 Q u e s t i o n t e x t As a general rule the courts will not allow a variation of the provisions of a will which is capable of being carried out. In the past, however, variation of the provisions of a will was allowed in certain limited circumstances. Indicate in which one of the following circumstances variation of thewillwill NOT beallowed: a. Where the circumstances of the case demand a departure from the will. b. Where the dispositions in the will are based on mistaken assumptions about the testator’s assets or liabilities. c. Where the strict enforcement of the testator’s provisions will result in the testator’s intentions being frustrated. d. Where there are more profitable ways to distribute the estate than those provided for in the will. F e e d b a c k The is: Where there are more profitable ways to distribute the estate than those provided for in the will. Q u e s t i o n 8 Q u e s t i o n t e x t In which case did the Court order that the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 had to be applied to all intestate estates, irrespective of the cultural affiliation of the deceased? a. Curators, Emma Smith Educational Fund v University of Kwazulu Natal 2010 (6) SA 518 (SCA) b. Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) SA 446 (CC) c. Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha (Commission For Gender Equality as Amicus Curiae); Shibi v Sithole; South African Human Rights Commission v President of the Republic of South Africa 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC) d. M inister of Education v Syfrets Trust Ltd 2006 (4) SA 205 (C) F e e d b a c k The is: Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha (Commission For Gender Equality as Amicus Curiae); Shibi v Sithole; South African Human Rights Commission v President of the Republic of South Africa 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC) Q u e s t i o n 9 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tabitha married Gilbert in community of property in 1990. In 1996, they made a mutual will in which they left their house to their only two children, John and Mimi, and appointed each other as the heir to the residue of the estate of the first deceased. In March 2020 Tabitha and Gilbert were divorced. In April 2020 Tabitha married Sam. Two days after the wedding, Tabitha was killed in a car crash. She had never changed her will. How will the residue of Tabitha’s estate devolve? a. Sam will inherit the residue of the estate. b. John and Mimi will inherit the residue of the estate. c. Gilbert, John and Mimi will inherit the residue of the estate. d. Sam, John and Mimi will inherit the residue of the estate. F e e d b a c k The is: Sam, John and Mimi will inherit the residue of the estate. Q u e s t i o n 1 0 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Xander died intestate in April 2020. Xander was married in community of property to Yandi. They had two children born from their union namely Ayanda and Ben. Ayanda and Ben both predeceased Xander and left no descendants. Xander’s father, Fred is also predeceased but Xander’s mother, Mary, is still alive. The value of Xander and Yandi’s joint estate is R2 000 000. How much will Yandi inherit? a. R1 000 000 b. R2 000 000 c. R250 000 d. R750 000 F e e d b a c k The is: R1 000 000 Q u e s t i o n 1 1 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Which one of the following statements ly reflects the decision of the Court in Bekker v Naude 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA)? a. An application in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 can be granted where the document was personally drafted or executed by the deceased. b. An application in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 can be granted where the document was drafted by someone else on behalf of the deceased, provided the deceased intended the document to be his will. c. An application in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 can be granted where the document was drafted by someone else on behalf of the deceased, provided that the deceased has accepted the document as his will. d. An application in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 can be granted where the document was “caused to be drafted” by the deceased. F e e d b a c k The is: An application in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 can be granted where the document was personally drafted or executed by the deceased. Q u e s t i o n 1 2 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Nimoy and Vickie were married in community of property. On 2 March 2020, Nimoy died intestate. Nimoy is survived by: • Vickie, his wife; • Barry, his adopted brother; • Winnie and Lisa, his two granddaughters (the daughters of Nimoy’s predeceased son, Celestine. Celestine was born of a previous marriage between Nimoy and Grace); • Zoliswa, his extra-marital son; • Harry and Isaac, his two grandsons (they are the sons of Zoliswa and his wife, Yvette). At his death, the joint estate of Nimoy and Vickie amounted to R360 000. How will Nimoy’s estate be divided? a. Vickie will inherit R180 000; Zoliswa will inherit R90 000; Winnie and Lisa will each inherit R45 000. b. Vickie will inherit R180 000 and no-one else will inherit anything. c. Vickie will inherit R250 000; Winnie and Lisa will each inherit R55 000. d. Vickie will inherit R250 000; Zoliswa will inherit R55 000; Winnie and Lisa will each inherit R27 500. F e e d b a c k The is: Vickie will inherit R180 000 and no-one else will inherit anything. Q u e s t i o n 1 3 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tiro made a valid will in 2019. In 2020 he decided that he wanted to change the name of one of the beneficiaries. He used “tippex” to erase the name and wrote the name of the new beneficiary over the “tippex”. Will this amendment be valid? a. Yes, provided he and two witnesses signed next to the amendment. b. No, because one is not allowed to use “tippex” in a will. The will should have been retyped and re-executed. c. Yes, provided a commissioner of oaths attached the certificate required by section 2(1)(a)(v) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. d. Yes, provided he signed next to the amendment. F e e d b a c k The is: Yes, provided he and two witnesses signed next to the amendment. Q u e s t i o n 1 4 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tandi, a widower, asked his daughter-in-law, Sally, who is married to his son, Charlie, to draft a will for him. In the will he provides that an amount of R100 000 goes to his son Charlie and that the residue of the estate is to be divided in equal shares among his three children, Bongani, Charlie and Dillon. After Sally had typed the will, Tandi signed the will in the presence of all his children and his friends, Fred and Gina. Charlie and Gina then signed the will as witnesses. When Tandi died, he was survived by his three children only and left no other relatives. His estate amounted to R400 000. Dillon and Bongani are unhappy that Charlie will inherit a greater share of the estate. Choose the scenario that is applicable in these facts if Charlie cannot afford to get a court order: a. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness and may not inherit anything from the estate. b. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R200 000 because Fred was also present when the will was signed. c. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R200 000 if he can prove to the Master that he did not unduly influence Tandi. d. Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R133 333 as his intestate share. F e e d b a c k The is: Charlie is disqualified from inheriting because he signed the will as a witness but, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, he may inherit R133 333 as his intestate share. Q u e s t i o n 1 5 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Sanele made a valid will in 2017 but decided a few months later that he wanted to revoke the will. Which of the following methods would NOT constituteavalidrevocationofthewill? a. Sanele declared before witnesses that he was revoking his will. b. Sanele drew a line through all the pages of the will. c. Sanele made a new will in which he included a clause revoking the previous will. d. Sanele made a new will contrary to the provisions of the first will. F e e d b a c k The is: Sanele declared before witnesses that he was revoking his will. Q u e s t i o n 1 6 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Wanda was a successful business woman who owned a house and several other assets. She was married to Steven, who is currently unemployed. They had two daughters, Bea and Carla. Wanda was diagnosed with cancer and shortly thereafter she approached ABC Trust and Wills to draw up a will for her. She completed a form with the heading, “Instructions to draft a will” and indicated on the form that her estate must go to her daughters. After this visit to the trust company, her health deteriorated suddenly. She died two weeks later without having completed any further documents. The legal position is as follows: a. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust and Wills is a valid will because it contains her intention about the division of her estate. b. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will and as such it cannot be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because it was not her intention that it should be her will. c. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will, but it can be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because she personally drafted the instructions. d. The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will, but it can be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because she had signed it. F e e d b a c k The is: The form that she filled in at ABC Trust is not a valid will as it only contains instructions to draw up a will and as such it cannot be condoned in terms of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 because it was not her intention that it should be her will. Q u e s t i o n 1 7 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I bequeath my Steinway piano to my eldest child, Audrey. On her death, the piano must go to her eldest child, Amelia. On Amelia’s death the piano must go to her eldest child, yet to be born. The piano must remain in my family and each descendant who inherits the piano is bound to leave it to his or her eldest child.” Which one of the following statements regarding this set of facts is ? a. The bequest is contra bonos mores because a testator should not be allowed to rule from the grave. b. The testator created a fideicommissum over the piano that will exist in perpetuity (meaning that it will not end). c. The second fideicommissary (Amelia’s child) will become the unconditional owner of the piano, with no obligation to hand it over to the third fideicommissary. d. The piano will go to Susan free of any condition or burden since one cannot create a fideicommissum over movable property. F e e d b a c k The is: The testator created a fideicommissum over the piano that will exist in perpetuity (meaning that it will not end). Q u e s t i o n 1 8 Q u e s t i o n t e x t The effect of a fideicommissum residui is that … a. the fiduciary may alienate ¾ of the property that forms the object of the fideicommissum. b. the fiduciary may not alienate the property that forms the object of the fideicommisum. c. the fiduciary may alienate the property that forms the object of the fideicommissum. d. the fiduciary may alienate ¼ of the property that forms the object of the fideicommissum. F e e d b a c k The is: the fiduciary may alienate ¾ of the property that forms the object of the fideicommissum. Q u e s t i o n 1 9 Q u e s t i o n t e x t The late Tom executed a will in 2019 that had been prepared for him by his attorney. In this will, Tom appointed his nephew Peter and his friend Ben as his heirs. When Tom executed this will he was recovering from a serious illness and was unable to write or sign his name. As a result, his attorney’s secretary, Nola, signed the will on behalf of Tom and at his direction. In which circumstances will this will be valid? a. N ola signed in the presence of Tom’s friends Anna and Ben and they signed the will next to her signature. A policeman, P Chetty, was also present and wrote the following words on the will: “I certify that this is the will of Tom.” He then signed his name beneath this statement and stamped it with a rubber stamp that stated: “P Chetty, Police Constable, Commissioner of Oaths, Umbilo Police Station, Durban.” b. Nola signed in the presence of a policemen who wrote the following words on the will: “I certify that this is the will of Tom.” The policeman then signed his name beneath this statement and stamped it with a rubber stamp that stated: “P Chetty, Police Constable, Commissioner of Oaths, Umbilo Police Station, Durban.” The next day, Tom’s wife took the document to Tom’s friends Anna and Ben and they then signed the will next to Nola’s signature. c. N ola signed in the presence of Tom’s friends Anna and Ben and they then signed the will next to her signature. A policeman, P Chetty, was also present. He wrote the following words on the will: “I certify that this is the will of Tom.” He then signed his name beneath this statement and stamped it with a rubber stamp that stated: “P Chetty, Police Constable, Umbilo Police Station, Durban.” d. Nola signed in the presence of Tom’s friends Anna and Ben and they signed the will next to her signature. The next day Tom’s wife took the will to a police station where a policeman wrote the following words on the will: “I certify that this is the will of Tom.” The policeman then signed his name beneath this statement and stamped it with a rubber stamp that stated: “P Chetty, Police Constable, Commissioner of Oaths, Umbilo Police Station, Durban.” F e e d b a c k The is: Nola signed in the presence of Tom’s friends Anna and Ben and they signed the will next to her signature. A policeman, P Chetty, was also present and wrote the following words on the will: “I certify that this is the will of Tom.” He then signed his name beneath this statement and stamped it with a rubber stamp that stated: “P Chetty, Police Constable, Commissioner of Oaths, Umbilo Police Station, Durban.” Q u e s t i o n 2 0 Q u e s t i o n t e x t The doctrine of election means that ... a. a beneficiary who is left a benefit to which a burden has been attached, must choose whether to inherit the benefit with or without the burden. b. a beneficiary who is left a benefit in a will and is burdened in the same will, must choose whether to accept the benefit and the burden or rather to repudiate the benefit and the burden. c. a beneficiary who has been sequestrated, has a choice whether to accept or repudiate a benefit in terms of a will. d. a beneficiary must choose whether he or she wants to inherit a benefit or not. F e e d b a c k The is: a beneficiary who is left a benefit in a will and is burdened in the same will, must choose whether to accept the benefit and the burden or rather to repudiate the benefit and the burden. Xavier and Yoda were brothers. They were killed in an air crash when the airplane in which they were travelling collided with a mountain. Their bodies were only found weeks after the accident. A medical doctor could not determine whether they survived the crash or were killed instantaneously. Xavier was the eldest of the two. He left a will in which he left his whole estate of half a million rand to Yoda. Yoda also left a will in which he left his entire estate to his girlfriend Gina. Yoda’s only possession was his Suzuki motorcycle. Xavier and Yoda were survived by their parents, Maggie and Fred, their sister, Sally and the girlfriend, Gina. Who will inherit the money and the motorcycle? a. M aggie and Fred will inherit the money and the motorcycle. b. Gina will inherit the money and the motorcycle. c. Maggie and Fred will inherit the money and Gina will inherit the motorcycle. d. M aggie, Fred and Sally will inherit the money and the motorcycle. F e e d b a c k The is: Maggie and Fred will inherit the money and Gina will inherit the motorcycle. Q u e s t i o n 2 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom died in 2018, leaving his wife Wendy, his daughter Daisy, Daisy’s minor son Fred, and Tom’s sister, Sarah. Daisy emigrated two years after Tom died. Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my house in town to my grandson, Fred, subject to the provision that while my wife, Wendy, is still alive she is entitled to stay in the house.” When did dies cedit and dies venit take place for Wendy and Fred respectively? a. For both Wendy and Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place when the testator died. b. For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. c. For both Wendy and Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place when Wendy died. d. For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit took place at the testator’s death and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. F e e d b a c k The is: For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit took place at the testator’s death and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. Q u e s t i o n 3 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Minister of Education v Syfrets Trust Ltd 2006 (4) SA 205 (C) provides authority for the following statement: a. Any clause in a will that differentiates between different race groups or gender groups is invalid. b. The boni mores as it prevailed when the will was made should be applied when deciding whether a clause in a will is invalid or not. c. A provision in a will that constitutes unfair discrimination may be deleted by a court based on its common law power to delete provisions that are contra bonos mores. d. The principle of freedom of testation is unfettered in our law. F e e d b a c k The is: A provision in a will that constitutes unfair discrimination may be deleted by a court based on its common law power to delete provisions that are contra bonos mores. Q u e s t i o n 4 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave R 20 000 to my daughter, Fran. She must receive this benefit before any other benefit is paid out.” The bequest to Fran is called … a. a prelagacy. b. an inheritance. c. a modus. d. a bequest price F e e d b a c k The is: a prelagacy. Q u e s t i o n 5 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my estate in trust to my trustee, Xolisa. My wife, Wanda, must receive the income from the trust during her lifetime. At her death, my children, Peter and John must receive the capital of the trust.” Who is the owner of the trust property after Tom’s death? a. Xolisa b. Peter and John c. Wanda, Peter and John d. Wanda F e e d b a c k The is: Xolisa Q u e s t i o n 6 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Thabo’s valid will valid will provides as follows: “I leave my beach house to my sister, Siyabonga. If she emigrates after my death, the house must go to my brother, Ben.” The bequest of the beach house to Siyabonga is... a. subject to a direct substitution in favour of Ben. b. subject to a terminative time clause. c. subject to a terminative condition. d. subject to a modus. F e e d b a c k The is: subject to a terminative condition. Q u e s t i o n 7 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Beth and Caro are both friends of Thabo. In which one of the following situations will Beth’s benefit accrue to Caro? a. Thabo leaves his farm to Beth and Caro. Beth dies before the testator. b. Thabo leaves his farm to Beth and Caro. He also provides that if either one of them cannot inherit, Denice must take her share. After the testator’s death, Beth refuses to inherit. c. Thabo leaves his car to Beth and his house to Caro. Beth dies before the testator. d. Thabo leaves his estate to Beth and Caro. Beth dies three months after the testator. F e e d b a c k The is: Thabo leaves his farm to Beth and Caro. Beth dies before the testator. Q u e s t i o n 8 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Moraka died intestate. He is survived by his paternal grandparents, Phila and Qaza only, and his uncle, Zion, on his mother’s side. How will his estate devolve? a. Zion will inherit the whole estate. b. Zion will inherit one half of the estate and Phila and Qaza will share the other half of the estate. c. Phila and Qaza will inherit the whole estate. d. Phila, Qaza and Zion will each inherit one-third of the estate. F e e d b a c k The is: Phila and Qaza will inherit the whole estate. Q u e s t i o n 9 Q u e s t i o n t e x t In which case did the court hold that three types of rectification, namely ion of clerical mistakes, the insertion of words that were left out by mistake and the deletion of words that were inserted by mistake, are allowed in our law? a. Rens v Esselen 1957 (4) SA 8 (T) b. Lello v Dales 1971 (2) SA 330 (A) c. M oses v Abinader 1951 (4) SA 537 (A) d. Van der Merwe v The Master 2010 (6) SA 544 (SCA) F e e d b a c k The is: Rens v Esselen 1957 (4) SA 8 (T) Q u e s t i o n 1 0 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tessa’s valid will provides as follows: “I bequeath my estate to my sister, Pam’s children.” At Tessa’s death Pam had a daughter, Debbie, an adopted son, Shaun, and she was expecting a child, Chrissy. Pam also had a stepson, Brandon. Brandon was the child of Pam’s husband from a previous relationship. After Tessa’s death, Chrissy was born alive and Pam subsequently had two more children, Ethan and Freddy. Who inherited Tessa’s estate? a. Debbie, Shaun, Chrissy, Ethan and Freddy b. Debbie, Shaun, Brandon c. D ebbie, Shaun, Chrissy d. Debbie, Chrissy, Ethan and Freddy F e e d b a c k The is: Debbie, Shaun, Chrissy Q u e s t i o n 1 1 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Xeno died intestate in December 2018 and left behind the following relatives: • Vera, his wife to whom he was married out of community of property with the accrual system; • Abel, his son (Abel was divorced and had two children, Paul and John. At the time of Xeno’s death, Abel was in jail, because he had caused the death of Xeno’s father, Fred, three years earlier in a motor car accident. Abel caused the accident because he wanted to commit suicide and deliberately drove into a tree at high speed); • Charl, his son (Charl was married to Kate and they had two children, Tom and Yvette); • Donna, his grandchild (Donna was the child of Bobby, his predeceased son); • Sandy, his grandchild. (Sandy was the adopted daughter of Ethel, Xeno’s child from a previous marriage. Ethel died in 2015). Xeno’s estate amounts to R1 500 000 (R1.5 million). Vera is entitled to R500 000 as accrual from her marriage to Xeno. How will Xeno’s estate devolve? a. Vera inherits R200 000. Charl, Donna and Sandy inherit R 200 000 each. Paul and John inherit R 100 000 each. b. Vera inherits R250 000. Charl, Donna and Sandy inherit R 187 500 each. Paul and John inherit R 93 750 each. c. Vera inherits R250 000. Charl, Donna and Sandy inherit R 237 500 each. Paul and John inherit R 118 750 each. d. Vera inherits R750 000. Charl, Donna and Sandy inherit R 187 500 each. Paul and John inherit R 93 750 each. F e e d b a c k The is: Vera inherits R250 000. Charl, Donna and Sandy inherit R 187 500 each. Paul and John inherit R 93 750 each. Q u e s t i o n 1 2 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Ayanda and Bonita, two adult females, started dating in 2010. Ayanda gave Bonita a promise ring to symbolise her intention to stay committed to her. Bonita moved in with Ayanda in 2011. They adopted a son, Chris, in 2013. Chris was 10 at the time and had been living with his only relative, a very rich grandfather, who left his entire estate in his will to Chris when he died in 2013. In October 2020, Ayanda and Chris were involved in a car accident and both passed away on the scene of the accident. After the funeral, Ayanda’s nearest relative, her brother Hendrik, instructed Bonita to move out of the home she shared with Ayanda as it had belonged to Ayanda. Since Ayanda had died intestate, Hendrik believed he will inherit the house from her. Will Bonita inherit from Chris and from Ayanda and may she therefore stay in the house? a. Bonita will not be able to stay in the house as she does not inherit intestate from Ayanda and she also does not inherit intestate from Chris as it is presumed that he died before Ayanda and that Ayanda therefore inherited from him. b. Bonitawill not beabletostayinthehousebecauseshedoesnot inherit intestate from Ayanda, according to Volks v Robinson 2005 (5) BCLR 446 (CC), but she does inherit intestate from Chris, her adopted son. c. Bonita will be able to stay in the house as she inherits intestate from Ayanda, according to Gory v Kolver 2007 (4) SA 97 (CC), but she does not inherit intestate from Chris as he was adopted. d. Bonita will be able to stay in the house as she inherits intestate from Ayanda, according to Gory v Kolver 2007 (4) SA 97 (CC) and she also inherits intestate from Chris, her adopted son. F e e d b a c k The is: Bonita will be able to stay in the house as she inherits intestate from Ayanda, according to Gory v Kolver 2007 (4) SA 97 (CC) and she also inherits intestate from Chris, her adopted son. Q u e s t i o n 1 3 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Buhle Baloyi, a 94-year-old retired judge, had been suffering from a prolonged respiratory infection from late 2018. In addition to this, he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis and as a result, he spent most of his days in bed, as he was in severe physical pain. He was looked after by his wife, Daisy Baloyi (67 years old), who took care of his daily needs and assisted him with basic tasks such as eating and bathing. Buhle had had a will in place since 2001, in terms of which he bequeathed 50% of his estate to his wife, Daisy; 25% to his nieces and nephews; and the remaining 25% to various charitable organisations. Buhle’s condition took a turn for the worst in August 2020. He was hospitalised and placed on strong medication. During Buhle’s time in hospital, he was befriended by a nurse, Pamela (25 years old). Pamela treated Buhle with utmost kindness and told Buhle that it is “an absolute honour to care for such a great public figure.” Pamela took it upon herself to read the newspaper to Buhle every morning and told him that it is a shame that his wife does not take the time to do these little things for him given the state of his health. Pamela told the nursing staff that she adds flowers next to his bedside every morning “to brighten up his day, and to win his heart, of course!” Buhle sadly died on 16 August 2020. A handwritten piece of paper with the following words on it was found in the drawer next to his hospital bed: “I hereby revoke all previous wills and leave everything to my sweet Pamela.” It was signed by Buhle with his initials as well as by Pamela and two other nurses. You are an attorney at ERF Attorneys. Daisy consults with you on 19 August 2020, and states that she seeks to challenge the validity of Buhle’s new will. On what grounds can Daisy challenge the validity of this will? a. The fact that Buhle lacked volition due to undue influence. b. The fact that a beneficiary signed as a witness. c. The fact that the will lacked formalities because Buhle signed with his initials. d. The fact that Buhle lacked testamentary capacity because of his advanced age. F e e d b a c k The is: The fact that Buhle lacked volition due to undue influence. Q u e s t i o n 1 4 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Mr and Mrs Smith were married out of community of property. They had two children, Anna and Ben. Anna died in 2005, leaving her two children, Deon and Ethel. Mr Smith died intestate in 2020. He left behind his wife and his children and grandchildren mentioned previously. His estate amounts to R 600 000. How much will a "child’s portion" be? a. R 300 000 b. R 125 000 c. R 250 000 d. R 200 000 F e e d b a c k The is: R 200 000 Q u e s t i o n 1 5 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Which one of the following statements regarding the legal position of the usufructuary is ? a. The ownership of the usufructuary is subject to a terminative condition. b. The usufructuary has a limited real right in the property subject to the usufruct. c. The usufructuary may only alienate or mortgage the property subject to the usufruct, with the cooperation of the nude owner. d. The usufructuary is the owner of the property subject to the usufruct. F e e d b a c k The is: The usufructuary has a limited real right in the property subject to the usufruct. Q u e s t i o n 1 6 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tiaan’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my farm to my son, Siya, on condition that he is picked to play for the Springbok rugby team. If he has not been picked by 2025, the farm must go to my daughter, Dina. My wife, Wilma, will have a usufruct over the farm until her death.” When will dies cedit take place for Siya? a. When he is picked to play for the Springboks. b. At Wilma’s death. c. In 2025. d. At Tiaans’s death. F e e d b a c k The is: When he is picked to play for the Springboks. Q u e s t i o n 1 7 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Thabo’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my beach house to my sister, Siyabonga. If she emigrates before my death, the house must go to my brother, Bheki.” The bequest of the beach house to Siyabonga is subject to a ... a. modus. b. suspensive condition. c. fideicommissum. d. direct substitution in favour of Bheki. F e e d b a c k The is: direct substitution in favour of Bheki. Q u e s t i o n 1 8 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom married Jonathan in terms of the Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 on 29 December 2016. Tom died on 10 October 2020 and left a valid will that he had made on 7 February 2017. This will provides as follows: “I leave my entire estate to my ex-girlfriend, Sadie. To Jonathan, who cheated on me, I leave nothing.” Jonathan’s position will be as follows: a. He can institute a claim for half of Tom’s estate against Sadie. b. He can bring an application to declare the will invalid as it is illegal to disown one’s spouse. c. He can inherit Tom’s estate intestate because, in terms of the Civil Union Act, he is considered to be in the same position as a spouse. d. He can institute a claim for his reasonable maintenance needs until his death against Tom’s estate. F e e d b a c k The is: He can institute a claim for his reasonable maintenance needs until his death against Tom’s estate. Q u e s t i o n 1 9 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Thebe’s valid will provides as follows: "I leave my farm in equal shares to my brothers Kabelo and Lerato. The residue of my estate goes to my brother, Pula." Kabelo predeceased Thebe but is survived by a child Ntsu. Thebe is survived by Lerato, Pula, Ntsu and his wife, Veronica. Who will inherit the farm? a. Lerato and Ntsu will inherit the farm in terms of section 2C of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. b. Veronica will inherit the farm according to intestate succession as the will is ineffective. c. Lerato will inherit the farm according to the accrual principle because Kabelo and Lerato were joined by means of joinder re et verbis. d. Pula will inherit the farm as it falls into the residue of the estate. F e e d b a c k The is: Lerato will inherit the farm according to the accrual principle because Kabelo and Lerato were joined by means of joinder re et verbis. Q u e s t i o n 2 0 Q u e s t i o n t e x t Thabo’s valid will provides as follows: 'I leave my beach house to my sister, Siyabonga. If she emigrates after my death, the house must go to my brother, Ben.” The bequest of the beach house to Siyabonga is ... a. subject to a direct substitution in favour of Ben. b. subject to a modus. c. subject to a suspensive time clause. d. subject to a fideicommissum. F e e d b a c k The is: subject to a fideicommissum. Nimoy and Vickie were married in community of property. On 2 March 2020, Nimoy died intestate. Nimoy is survived by: • Vickie, his wife; • Barry, his adopted brother; • Winnie and Lisa, his two granddaughters (the daughters of Nimoy’s predeceased son, Celestine. Celestine was born of a previous marriage between Nimoy and Grace); • Zoliswa, his extra-marital son; • Harry and Isaac, his two grandsons (they are the sons of Zoliswa and his wife, Yvette). At his death, the joint estate of Nimoy and Vickie amounted to R360 000. How will Nimoy’s estate be divided? a. Vickie will inherit R250 000; Zoliswa will inherit R55 000; Winnie and Lisa will each inherit R27 500. b. Vickie will inherit R250 000; Winnie and Lisa will each inherit R55 000. c. Vickie will inherit R180 000 and no-one else will inherit anything. d. Vickie will inherit R180 000; Zoliswa will inherit R90 000; Winnie and Lisa will each inherit R45 000. F e e d b a c k The is: Vickie will inherit R180 000 and no-one else will inherit anything. Q u e s t i o n 2 Flagquestion Q u e s t i o n t e x t Thabo’s valid will valid will provides as follows: “I leave my beach house to my sister, Siyabonga. If she emigrates after my death, the house must go to my brother, Ben.” The bequest of the beach house to Siyabonga is... a. subject to a terminative condition. b. subject to a terminative time clause. c. subject to a modus. d. subject to a direct substitution in favour of Ben. F e e d b a c k The is: subject to a terminative condition. Q u e s t i o n 3 Flagquestion Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tebogo’s valid will provides as follows: "I leave my house to my sons Xander and Yusuf in equal shares. The residue of my estate goes to my brother, Blake." Xander predeceased Tebogo but is survived by a son Wade. Tebogo is survived by Yusuf, Wade and Blake. Who will inherit the house? a. Wade, Yusuf and Blake will inherit the house according to intestate succession as the will is ineffective. b. Yusuf will inherit the house according to the accrual principle because Xander and Yusuf were joined by means of joinder re. c. Blake will inherit the house as it falls into the residue of the estate. d. Yusuf and Wade will inherit the house in terms of section 2C of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. F e e d b a c k The is: Yusuf and Wade will inherit the house in terms of section 2C of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. Q u e s t i o n 4 Flagquestion Q u e s t i o n t e x t In which case did the Court hold that the definition of 'sign' includes the making of initials? a. Smith v Parsons 2010 (4) SA 378 (SCA) b. Kidwell v The Master 1983 (1) SA 509 (E) c. Jhajbhai v The Master1971 (2) SA 370 (D) d. Harpur Govindamall 1993 (4) SA 751 (A) F e e d b a c k The is: Harpur Govindamall 1993 (4) SA 751 (A) Q u e s t i o n 5 Flagquestion Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my estate in trust to my trustee, Xolisa. My wife, Wanda, must receive the income from the trust during her lifetime. At her death, my children, Peter and John must receive the capital of the trust.” Who is the owner of the trust property after Tom’s death? a. Xolisa b. Peter and John c. Wanda d. Wanda, Peter and John F e e d b a c k The is: Xolisa Q u e s t i o n 6 Flagquestion Q u e s t i o n t e x t Tom died in 2018, leaving his wife Wendy, his daughter Daisy, Daisy’s minor son Fred, and Tom’s sister, Sarah. Daisy emigrated two years after Tom died. Tom’s valid will provides as follows: “I leave my house in town to my grandson, Fred, subject to the provision that while my wife, Wendy, is still alive she is entitled to stay in the house.” When did dies cedit and dies venit take place for Wendy and Fred respectively? a. For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit took place at the testator’s death and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. b. For both Wendy and Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place when the testator died. c. For both Wendy and Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place when Wendy died. d. For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. F e e d b a c k The is: For Wendy both dies cedit and dies venit took place at the testator’s death; for Fred dies cedit took place at the testator’s death and dies venit took place at Wendy’s death. Q u e s t i o n 7 Flagquestion Q u e s t i o n t e x t Identifythe IN statementregardingtheReformof Customary Law of Succession Act (RCLSA) 11 of 2009: a. The RCLSA recognises the application of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 to woman-to-woman marriages in terms of customary law. b. The RCLSA introduces the concept of freedom of testation into the customary law of succession. c. The RCLSA excludes the working of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 in the case of a deceased married in terms of customary law. d. In terms of the RCLSA a spouse of a deceased in a substitute marriage is considered as a descendant