Unattested alteration to a will made after execution (Wills Act 1837 s.21)
Harriet's validly executed will, signed and witnessed in 2022, contains the clause 'I give £5,000 to my nephew Callum'. In 2024 Harriet drew a single line through '£5,000', leaving the figure clearly legible, and wrote '£15,000' above it. She initialled the change and dated it, but no one witnessed it and she did not re-execute the will or make a codicil. It is accepted that the change was made after the will was executed. Harriet has now died, domiciled in England.
Which of the following best describes Callum's entitlement?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: Callum takes £5,000, because the unattested alteration has no effect and the original words remain apparent.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
An alteration made after execution has no effect unless executed like a will, except that original words which are no longer apparent are treated as removed.
Unattested alteration to a will made after execution (Wills Act 1837 s.21)
Under s.21 Wills Act 1837, no obliteration, interlineation or other alteration made in a will after its execution is valid or has any effect unless it is executed in the same way as a will (that is, signed by the testator and attested by two witnesses, for example in the margin near the alteration). The only exception is 'so far as the words or effect of the will before such alteration shall not be apparent'. Harriet's change was made after execution and was only initialled, not witnessed, so the interlineation of '£15,000' is ineffective. Because the line through '£5,000' left the figure clearly legible, the original words are still apparent, so the attempted obliteration has no effect either. The will is read as it stood when executed, and Callum takes £5,000.
Why A is wrong: Initials alone do not satisfy s.21; the alteration had to be executed like a will, with the testator's signature attested by two witnesses.
Why B is wrong: An obliteration takes effect only so far as the original words are not apparent; here '£5,000' is clearly legible, so the gift stands.
Why C is wrong: An ineffective alteration does not invalidate the will; s.21 simply deprives the alteration of effect.
Why E is wrong: Executors have no discretion to give effect to an unexecuted alteration; s.21 makes it of no effect.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Acknowledging an earlier signature to two witnesses present together (Wills Act 1837 s.9)
Which of the following best describes whether the will was validly executed?
Revocation of a will by marriage and the expectation of marriage exception (Wills Act 1837 s.18)
Which of the following best describes the status of the 2024 will?
Gifts to a witness's spouse under section 15 Wills Act 1837
Which of the following best describes the effect of Gareth having witnessed the will?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.