MODULE : PVL2602
,PVL2602 Exam
Study Revision
Pack
Contains:
Multiple Choice Questions &
Solutions with Detailed
Notes
Comprehensive Study Unit
Summaries
Exam Questions & Solutions
(2014-2016)
,ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 2 – 2015
1. Xander and Wanda were married out of community of property with inclusion of the accrual
system. They had three adult sons, Ben, Charl and David. David was predeceased. Before his
death, David had been married to Zola. David and Zola had a child, Elize. David also had a child
Frank from a previous relationship with Petro. David and Petro had never been married. Zola had
an adult child, Gavin, from a previous marriage.
Xander dies intestate and the value of his estate amounts to R900 000. Xander's estate has to
pay R100 000 accrual to Wanda.
Calculate how Xander's estate is going to devolve, giving reasons for your calculations. (10)
Statutory amount = R250 000.
i) Xander (X)'s estate has to pay R100 000 to Wanda (W) in terms of matrimonial
property law (the accrual that she was entitled to). X's intestate estate available for
distribution therefore amounts to R800 000 (R900 000 – R100 000 = R800 000).
ii) X had a spouse and children - therefore section 1(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession
Act 81 of 1987 applies in terms of which the spouse inherits either a child's share
or R250 000 (the statutory amount) whichever is the greater and the children share
the rest of the estate equally.
iii) A child's share is calculated by dividing the value of the intestate estate by the
number of children of the deceased
iv) who have either survived him,
v) or have predeceased him but are survived by their descendants,
vi) plus the number of surviving spouses (in this case only W).
vii) To calculate the child's share we therefore count Ben (B), Charl (C) and David (D)
(since D left children to represent him) plus W (B, C, D en W = 4), and divide R800
000 by 4. This means a child's share amounts to R200 000.
viii) Since a child’s share of R200 000 is less than the statutory amount of R250 000, W
inherits the amount of R250 000.
ix) After X inherits R250 000, R550 000 remains in X’s intestate estate to be divided
equally amongst his children. X's children, B, C and D (represented by his
children), inherit the residue in equal shares (R550 000 ÷ 3 = R183 333).
x) B and C each inherit R183 333 and E and F inherit D's share equally, each inheriting
R91 666.
xi) F may inherit even though he was born of unmarried parents, because in terms of
the Intestate Succession Act no difference should be made between children born
of married or unmarried parents.
xii) Gavin (G) may not inherit from X, because he is not a blood relation of D but a step-
child.
2. Tom committed suicide in 2014. He left a letter in which he wrote that he revoked all previous wills
and left all his possessions to his two children from his first marriage, Susan and Dennis. This
letter was only signed with Tom's signature. It appears that he had executed a valid will two years
previously in which he had left all his possessions to his second wife and nothing to his children.
Answer questions (a) and (b) on this set of facts.
a) Is the letter that Tom left behind a valid will? Give a reason for your answer. (2)
The will is not a valid will (1) because it was not signed by two competent witnesses (1)
b) Susan and Dennis approach you for advice. They want to know if there is any way that they
can inherit. Give a brief discussion of the problem with reference only to most recent and
most authoritative case law. (Discuss the current legal position without discussing the
previous split in opinion that existed.) (13)
, i) Susan and Dennis will have to approach the Court for an order in terms of
section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953.
ii) Section 2(3) gives the High Court the power to order the Master to accept a
document
iii) which does not comply with the execution or amendment formalities, as a valid
will
iv) if it is satisfied that the testator intended the defectively executed document to
be his or her will or an amendment to it.
v) This power of the Court is often referred to as the power of condonation and
section 2(3) is often called the "rescue provision".
vi) If the requirements of section 2(3) are satisfied, the Court makes an order
directing the Master to accept the will or amendment as if it were validly
executed. The provisions of section 2(3) are peremptory. In other words, if the
requirements of the section are satisfied by proof on a balance of probabilities,
then the Court has no discretion but must make an order directing the Master
to accept the document as a valid will.
vii) Meaning of “drafted or executed”: In Bekker v Naude 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA),
viii) the Supreme Court of Appeal held that a narrow interpretation should be given
to these words in terms of which the testator should have personally drafted
the document. This aspect is not an issue in our set of facts as it is clear that
the testator attempted to execute the document by signing it.
ix) The court has to be satisfied that the testator intended the document to be his 6
or her will. This requirement comes into play in the current set of facts.
x) To establish intention it must be shown that the particular document was, at
the time it was made, intended to be the final expression of the deceased’s
wishes, not subject to change except by a new will or codicil.
xi) According to the SCA, this required degree of finality is not present in the case
of written instructions, or letters of instruction, given by the deceased to an
attorney, bank, or other advisor, because the testator does not intend that the
instructions themselves should serve as his or her will. Rather, the testator
intends that a further document will be produced for his or her approval, based
on the written instructions.
xii) It is, however, vital to pay attention to the intention of the testator with respect
to the writing, not merely to the form that the writing takes.
xiii) Consequently, in Van Wetten v Bosch,
xiv) a section 2(3) order was granted with respect to a letter addressed to the
testator’s attorney containing instructions for the drafting of a will. What
distinguished this case from Ex parte Maurice was that the testator had left the
letter in the possession of a friend with instructions that the letter was only to
be given to the testator’s attorney if something should happen to the testator
which the Court interpreted as a reference to the testator’s death. Since it
would be futile to give instructions for the drafting of a will after one’s death,
the Court concluded that the letter itself was intended to function as the final
expression of the testator’s wishes, notwithstanding that it was in the form of a
letter of instructions.
3. Write a note on the capacity of a beneficiary under a will to inherit from the testator if the
beneficiary has caused the death of the testator. Refer to case law to substantiate your answer.
(5)
i) A beneficiary who is responsible for the death of the deceased or the
coniunctissimi (people closely related to the deceased) of the deceased is
precluded from inheriting either testate or intestate from the deceased (Ex parte
Steenkamp and Steenkamp 1952 (1) SA 744 (T)).
ii) The rule precluding a killer from inheriting finds application in the Roman-Dutch
law maxim, de bloedige hand neemt geen erf (literally meaning the bloody hand
takes no inheritance).
,PVL2602 Exam
Study Revision
Pack
Contains:
Multiple Choice Questions &
Solutions with Detailed
Notes
Comprehensive Study Unit
Summaries
Exam Questions & Solutions
(2014-2016)
,ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 2 – 2015
1. Xander and Wanda were married out of community of property with inclusion of the accrual
system. They had three adult sons, Ben, Charl and David. David was predeceased. Before his
death, David had been married to Zola. David and Zola had a child, Elize. David also had a child
Frank from a previous relationship with Petro. David and Petro had never been married. Zola had
an adult child, Gavin, from a previous marriage.
Xander dies intestate and the value of his estate amounts to R900 000. Xander's estate has to
pay R100 000 accrual to Wanda.
Calculate how Xander's estate is going to devolve, giving reasons for your calculations. (10)
Statutory amount = R250 000.
i) Xander (X)'s estate has to pay R100 000 to Wanda (W) in terms of matrimonial
property law (the accrual that she was entitled to). X's intestate estate available for
distribution therefore amounts to R800 000 (R900 000 – R100 000 = R800 000).
ii) X had a spouse and children - therefore section 1(1)(c) of the Intestate Succession
Act 81 of 1987 applies in terms of which the spouse inherits either a child's share
or R250 000 (the statutory amount) whichever is the greater and the children share
the rest of the estate equally.
iii) A child's share is calculated by dividing the value of the intestate estate by the
number of children of the deceased
iv) who have either survived him,
v) or have predeceased him but are survived by their descendants,
vi) plus the number of surviving spouses (in this case only W).
vii) To calculate the child's share we therefore count Ben (B), Charl (C) and David (D)
(since D left children to represent him) plus W (B, C, D en W = 4), and divide R800
000 by 4. This means a child's share amounts to R200 000.
viii) Since a child’s share of R200 000 is less than the statutory amount of R250 000, W
inherits the amount of R250 000.
ix) After X inherits R250 000, R550 000 remains in X’s intestate estate to be divided
equally amongst his children. X's children, B, C and D (represented by his
children), inherit the residue in equal shares (R550 000 ÷ 3 = R183 333).
x) B and C each inherit R183 333 and E and F inherit D's share equally, each inheriting
R91 666.
xi) F may inherit even though he was born of unmarried parents, because in terms of
the Intestate Succession Act no difference should be made between children born
of married or unmarried parents.
xii) Gavin (G) may not inherit from X, because he is not a blood relation of D but a step-
child.
2. Tom committed suicide in 2014. He left a letter in which he wrote that he revoked all previous wills
and left all his possessions to his two children from his first marriage, Susan and Dennis. This
letter was only signed with Tom's signature. It appears that he had executed a valid will two years
previously in which he had left all his possessions to his second wife and nothing to his children.
Answer questions (a) and (b) on this set of facts.
a) Is the letter that Tom left behind a valid will? Give a reason for your answer. (2)
The will is not a valid will (1) because it was not signed by two competent witnesses (1)
b) Susan and Dennis approach you for advice. They want to know if there is any way that they
can inherit. Give a brief discussion of the problem with reference only to most recent and
most authoritative case law. (Discuss the current legal position without discussing the
previous split in opinion that existed.) (13)
, i) Susan and Dennis will have to approach the Court for an order in terms of
section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953.
ii) Section 2(3) gives the High Court the power to order the Master to accept a
document
iii) which does not comply with the execution or amendment formalities, as a valid
will
iv) if it is satisfied that the testator intended the defectively executed document to
be his or her will or an amendment to it.
v) This power of the Court is often referred to as the power of condonation and
section 2(3) is often called the "rescue provision".
vi) If the requirements of section 2(3) are satisfied, the Court makes an order
directing the Master to accept the will or amendment as if it were validly
executed. The provisions of section 2(3) are peremptory. In other words, if the
requirements of the section are satisfied by proof on a balance of probabilities,
then the Court has no discretion but must make an order directing the Master
to accept the document as a valid will.
vii) Meaning of “drafted or executed”: In Bekker v Naude 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA),
viii) the Supreme Court of Appeal held that a narrow interpretation should be given
to these words in terms of which the testator should have personally drafted
the document. This aspect is not an issue in our set of facts as it is clear that
the testator attempted to execute the document by signing it.
ix) The court has to be satisfied that the testator intended the document to be his 6
or her will. This requirement comes into play in the current set of facts.
x) To establish intention it must be shown that the particular document was, at
the time it was made, intended to be the final expression of the deceased’s
wishes, not subject to change except by a new will or codicil.
xi) According to the SCA, this required degree of finality is not present in the case
of written instructions, or letters of instruction, given by the deceased to an
attorney, bank, or other advisor, because the testator does not intend that the
instructions themselves should serve as his or her will. Rather, the testator
intends that a further document will be produced for his or her approval, based
on the written instructions.
xii) It is, however, vital to pay attention to the intention of the testator with respect
to the writing, not merely to the form that the writing takes.
xiii) Consequently, in Van Wetten v Bosch,
xiv) a section 2(3) order was granted with respect to a letter addressed to the
testator’s attorney containing instructions for the drafting of a will. What
distinguished this case from Ex parte Maurice was that the testator had left the
letter in the possession of a friend with instructions that the letter was only to
be given to the testator’s attorney if something should happen to the testator
which the Court interpreted as a reference to the testator’s death. Since it
would be futile to give instructions for the drafting of a will after one’s death,
the Court concluded that the letter itself was intended to function as the final
expression of the testator’s wishes, notwithstanding that it was in the form of a
letter of instructions.
3. Write a note on the capacity of a beneficiary under a will to inherit from the testator if the
beneficiary has caused the death of the testator. Refer to case law to substantiate your answer.
(5)
i) A beneficiary who is responsible for the death of the deceased or the
coniunctissimi (people closely related to the deceased) of the deceased is
precluded from inheriting either testate or intestate from the deceased (Ex parte
Steenkamp and Steenkamp 1952 (1) SA 744 (T)).
ii) The rule precluding a killer from inheriting finds application in the Roman-Dutch
law maxim, de bloedige hand neemt geen erf (literally meaning the bloody hand
takes no inheritance).
