In Suspicious Circumstances

Product Information

The requirement to prove the Will-maker knew and approved of the contents and effects of the Will is part of ensuring the Will contained the maker’s real testamentary intentions. Good evidence of this is, for example, that the Will was read to, or by, the Will-maker and they confirmed their understanding. This past Friday night, the first in the Cellar Club showings at 9.05pm was this TV movie, which was extended from a failed TV pilot.

The two films being shown as part of The Cellar Club two weeks on Friday (13th October) are Christine (which is getting a screening in Odeon cinemas soon) and another Terry O'Quinn-starring film, Pin. The aforementioned two films, including Caroline Munro's introductions and her preview of the films airing the following week as part of The Cellar Club, premiere on TPTV from 9 pm - 1.35 am. Where a Will is duly executed a presumption arises that the testator Knew and Approved of its contents. However, extenuating facts or circumstances may exist even in cases where the Will has been read over by, or to, the testator. In the case of Astridge v Pepper [1970] 1 NSWR 542, evidence existed that even though the 99-year-old testatrix appeared to have read the Will, the Court found suspicious circumstances in the fact that she was not capable of reading and understanding the document. In the case of Birt v The Public Trustee of Queensland [2013] Undue Influence was involved in the making of the Will of 86-year-old testator Patricia Brooks. Brooks, who suffered from dementia, died in 2010, survived by two daughters and a son. A Will made in 2004 left her entire estate to her son, with a gift to one daughter. Whereas the previous Will made in 1990 had left her estate to her children in equal shares. The sisters argued that their brother, who lived with their mother, exerted Undue Influence over their mother via behaviour that included verbal abuse, bullying and letting friends steal from her. The judge ruled there was no evidence that the brother had convinced their mother to change her Will to leave her entire estate to him.The presence of suspicious circumstances does not shift the burden of proving fraud and undue influence: the burden always rests on the party challenging the validity of the will to prove the existence of fraud or undue influence if those allegations are being raised. The Court will then examine and determine each allegation of Undue Influence based on consideration of all the circumstances of the matter. This means that if suspicious circumstances are found sufficient to “excite the suspicion” of the Court, the onus of proof that the deceased knew and approved of the Will’s contents becomes a burden on the person claiming that the Will is valid. The doctrine of suspicious circumstances impacts who has the burden of proof of the various elements relevant to proving the validity of a will.

At the outset of nearly every challenge to the validity of a will, one party will allege that there were “suspicious circumstances” surrounding the drafting and signing of the will. However, the legal implications of “suspicious circumstances” are frequently misunderstood: they are not grounds to invalidate a will. Rather, a finding that there were “suspicious circumstances” shifts the burden of proof. The misapplication of this doctrine is grounds for an appeal, as was the case in McLeod Estate v Cole et al, 2022 MBCA 73. The origins of the rule of suspicious circumstances can be found in the early nineteenth century English case Barry v Butlin (1838). This case referred to circumstances that “ought generally to excite the suspicion of the court”. The rule initially was confined to the preparation and execution of the Will. Most recently, the NSW case Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) NSWCA 285 broadened the law to include concerns over the contents. Did the Will-maker have adequate knowledge and approval of the contents, and did they truly express the Will maker’s testamentary intentions? the testator did not give the instructions for the draft Will and the party who takes a significant benefit under the Will, prepared, or procured the Will the person took advantage of the testator and benefited from the distribution of assets under the will. Boxtree published a tie-in book featuring 11 true cases of infamous crimes from the 1870s to the 1980s. [3]it is not enough to show that a person had the power to overbear someone – you will need to show that they actually exercised that power and that it resulted in the production of a Will that is not what the testator wanted. Suspicious Circumstances are circumstances that cast doubt on whether the Testator had Knowledge and Approval of the contents of the Will. In McLeod, the plaintiffs were the administrators of their estranged father’s estate. The deceased was an elderly retired farmer who was diagnosed with dementia shortly before he died.

In Suspicious Circumstances is a British true crime drama television series produced by Granada Television for ITV between 3 June 1991 and 11 October 1996. Re-enactments of historical crimes were introduced by Edward Woodward. Although there is no strict definition of suspicious circumstances, some that might cause suspicion to arise might include:In suspicious circumstances, the so-called “propounder” or defender of a Will (the person putting forward the Will as being valid) must establish that the maker knew and approved of the contents of the Will to dispel the suspicions raised.