Subject-Matter Index

Administration of assets

action between joint administrators

if debt allegedly owed to estate by one joint administrator, only resolved by other joint administrator bringing proceedings against him for account and payment of any funds found owing: De Putron v. De Putron (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR N [1]

family arrangements. See Administration of assets—loans due to deceased

interpretation of financial arrangements

object of court (whether agreements written or oral) to give effect to intentions of parties, viewing terms of each arrangement in entirety, giving words natural and ordinary meaning in context of arrangement, parties’ relationship and all surrounding relevant facts so far as known to them—intentions of parties to be ascertained objectively, i.e. discovered from words used understood in context in which arrangement made: De Putron v. De Putron (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR N [1]

loans due to deceased

loans to be repaid to estate with interest (if interest found payable)—in absence of formal documentation, all background evidence to be examined, especially if loan seen as family arrangement—intentions of lender and borrower to be ascertained objectively from words used in context: De Putron v. De Putron (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR N [1]

repayment—repayments applied to discharge of any loan still existing—principle of customary and English law that to be applied to loans in order in which incurred—principle always applied flexibly if justice requires it, e.g. may be applied in order dictated by degree of benefit to borrower, to loans attracting interest, rather than interest-free loans: De Putron v. De Putron (Royal Ct.), 2013 GLR N [1]

payment of debts

action for payment to be brought first against heirs to personal estate and only if personalty insufficient against heirs to real estate—customary law rule that “les meubles sont le siège des dettes” remains applicable: L v. O (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR 362

supervision by court

Royal Court has same supervisory jurisdiction over administration of estates as has over trusts—desirable for executor to seek directions of court if dispute over administration: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [8]

Advancement of inheritance. See Légitime—calculating légitime

Costs

indemnity out of estate

executor entitled to receive out of estate all costs honestly and reasonably incurred in execution of duties, including costs of litigation—right only lost by executor’s misconduct: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [8]

executor not entitled to indemnity for costs of hostile litigation by beneficiaries challenging conduct of executorship (akin to beneficiaries’ dispute in trusts law): Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [6]

if court specifies no order as to costs, executor ordinarily not entitled to rely on indemnity: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [6]

misconduct denying executor right to indemnity—extremely unreasonable behaviour to be proved by party alleging it though need not be dishonesty or fraud—honest mistake or mere carelessness not sufficient: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [8]

potential beneficiaries entitled to costs out of estate to resolve deceased’s domicile at time of death—although in form of adverse litigation, proceedings mutually beneficial in substance and decision required for proper administration of estate: In re Ackrill (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 207

Jurats

presiding judge normally to decide costs but Jurats to determine matters of fact giving rise to costs, e.g. whether executor took costs from estate outside terms of charging clause: Green v. Torode (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR N [8]

Death of executor. See Executors and administrators—devolution of executorship

Devolution of executorship. See Executors and administrators—devolution of executorship

Directions of court. See Administration of assets—supervision by court

Domicile of deceased. See CONFLICT OF LAWS (Domicile)

Ecclesiastical Court. See Wills—probate

Executors and administrators

costs. See Costs—indemnity out of estate

devolution of executorship

if executor dies before completing administration of deceased’s estate, presumption that executorship devolves to executor’s own executor—if dispute and alternative candidate proposed, most suitable executor appointed: Dockerill v. Chilcott (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [16]

directions of court. See Administration of assets—supervision by court

indemnity out of estate. See Costs—indemnity out of estate

oath to produce proper account of administration

action to enforce compliance of Alderney executor under Royal Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but may also be heard in Court of Alderney—unless challenge, executor deemed to submit to jurisdiction of plaintiff’s choice of court when leave to proceed obtained: Mateus v. Walters (Royal Ct.), 2009–10 GLR N [13]

Family arrangements. See Administration of assets—loans due to deceased

Forced heirship. See Légitime—calculating légitime

Fraud. See Wills—probate

Heirs to personalty and realty. See Administration of assets—payment of debts

Indemnity out of estate. See Costs—indemnity out of estate

Intention of testator. See Wills—rectification

Inter vivos gifts. See Légitime—calculating légitime

Interpretation. See Wills—interpretation

Interpretation of wills. See Wills—interpretation

Joint administrators. See Administration of assets—action between joint administrators

Law applicable. See Wills—law applicable

Légitime

calculating légitime

no presumption in Guernsey law that inter vivos gift of realty from parent to child an advancement of inheritance—not to be included when calculating légitime: In re Kurzschenkel (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 37

rebuttable presumption in Guernsey law that inter vivos gifts of personalty (not realty) from parent to child an advancement of inheritance—to be included when calculating value of légitime—modern scope and exceptions to presumption unclear: In re Kurzschenkel (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 37

Payment of debts. See Administration of assets—payment of debts

Photocopy of will. See Wills—photocopies

Probate. See Wills—probate

Rectification. See Wills—rectification

Repayment of loans to estate. See Administration of assets—loans due to deceased

Survivorship in joint account. See BANKING (Accounts—joint accounts)

Testamentary capacity. See Wills—testamentary capacity

Wills

extrinsic evidence. See Wills—rectification

interpretation

if will capable of two interpretations, by one of which property passes in rational, convenient and ordinary way, and by other in irrational and inconvenient way, court will lean towards former interpretation—no wish to attribute caprice and lack of intelligible motive to testator, even if results in giving words meaning different from normal: Russell v. Gillespie (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR 54

will to be interpreted according to law intended by testator—if no indications to contrary, presumed to be law of domicile at time of execution: Executor v. Eight Beneficiaries (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [8]

law applicable

will of realty—in absence of Guernsey authority and detail in Norman-based law, court to consider other French authorities: In re Middlebrook (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [16]

photocopies

photocopy may be registered if true copy of original—if will last traced to testator’s possession but not found after death, rebuttable presumption of destruction by testator with intention of revocation—rebutted by clear evidence to contrary, e.g. of accidental destruction: In re Le Marquand (née Henderson) (Royal Ct.), 2018 GLR 87

probate

under Ecclesiastical Court (Jurisdiction) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1994, s.3 and inherent jurisdiction, Royal Court has duty to right injustice if Ecclesiastical Court inadvertently assists fraud by granting probate—Norwich Pharmacal order for disclosure of related Ecclesiastical Court documents may be appropriate, but cases to be considered on own merits: X v. Ecclesiastical Ct. Registrar (Royal Ct.), 2003–04 GLR N [24]

rectification

to be used sparingly with extreme caution—ascertaining testator’s intention of paramount importance—if clear, compelling extrinsic evidence of mistake (e.g. ambiguity on face of will due to failure of testator’s advocate to include, as instructed, devise of realty to surviving spouse), court may rectify will to fulfil testator’s intention—applicant to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts—no reason or justification for distinction between deletion of words and any other change: In re Middlebrook (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [16]

to be used sparingly with extreme caution—if clear, compelling evidence of mistake (e.g. belief that later will revoking all previous wills concerning personalty would not revoke earlier will concerning leasehold flat), court may rectify will to fulfil testator’s intention: Executor v. Eight Beneficiaries (Royal Ct.), 2017 GLR N [8]

restrictions on testamentary freedom. See Légitime

testamentary capacity

advocate prepared wills for client, whom children claimed lacked testamentary capacity—advocate owed no duty of care to deceased’s children who would have been better off if wills not made—deceased’s children brought probate proceedings which were compromised, involving payment by children to deceased’s widow—children’s subsequent action against advocate to recover, as damages for negligence, cost of probate proceedings and payment to widow dismissed: Dorey v. Ashton (C.A.), 2023 GLR 113

burden of proof—capacity normally presumed but if previous mental illness raises dispute or doubts about capacity, to be established affirmatively by person propounding will—heavier burden if evidence of previous mental illness—person propounding will to establish that will made after recovery from mental illness or during lucid interval: Brooks v. Allen (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 410

will of realty. See Wills—law applicable

Website by