SQE1 · FLK2 · Free samples

Wills and Administration of Estates — free SQE1 sample questions

122 free, worked single-best-answer questions for Wills and Administration of Estates, shown in the official SRA SBAQ format with the correct answer and a cited rationale. Drill the full bank in timed practice once you’ve worked through these.

1. Question 1

   A testator made a valid will in 2018 gifting 'my 5,000 shares in BT Group plc to my nephew'. At the date of the will the testator did indeed own 5,000 BT Group plc shares. Between execution and death, the testator sold 2,000 of those shares for cash and transferred 1,000 of them to his daughter as a birthday gift. At the date of death the testator held 2,000 BT Group plc shares. How many shares does the nephew receive under the will?

   • A.None, because disposing of any part of a specifically gifted asset causes the entire gift to adeem.
   • B.2,000 shares, being those shares still owned by the testator at death.✓ correct
   • C.5,000 shares, because the estate is obliged to purchase replacement shares to satisfy a specific gift.
   • D.3,000 shares, because the inter vivos transfer to the daughter is treated as a satisfaction of part of the nephew's entitlement and is void as against the will.
   • E.4,000 shares, because only the 1,000 shares voluntarily gifted to the daughter are adeemed; the sold shares must be replaced from the sale proceeds held in the estate.

   Why B is correct

   A gift of identified shares is a **specific gift** and is subject to the doctrine of **ademption**: if the subject matter ceases to form part of the testator's estate at death, the gift fails to that extent (*pro tanto*). - **2,000 shares sold**: the proceeds of sale are not the gifted asset; the specific gift adeems as to those shares. The nephew has no claim to the cash proceeds (see *Re Slater* [1907] 1 Ch 665, which confirms that when a specifically gifted asset is converted into a fundamentally different form the gift adeems; the same principle applies where the asset is simply sold). - **1,000 shares transferred to the daughter**: those shares are no longer in the estate, so the gift adeems as to them also. - **2,000 shares remaining**: these still answer the description in the will and pass to the nephew. **Option A** is wrong: ademption is *pro tanto*; it extinguishes only the part of the gift that has been removed from the estate, not the whole gift where some subject matter survives. **Option C** is wrong: there is no rule requiring the estate to repurchase specifically gifted assets; the personal representatives have no such duty. **Option D** is wrong: inter vivos dispositions by a testator are entirely valid and do not constitute satisfaction of testamentary gifts unless a presumption of satisfaction applies, which has no basis on these facts. **Option E** is wrong: the doctrine of ademption applies equally to shares that are sold and shares that are given away; the nephew acquires no interest in the proceeds of the 2,000 shares that were sold.

2. Question 2

   A testator executed a valid will in 2020 leaving her entire estate to her sister. In 2022, the testator married. The testator died in 2023 without executing a new will. The testator is survived by her husband and her sister. The estate is worth £400,000. What is the effect of the testator's marriage on her will?

   • A.The will is revoked in its entirety by the marriage.✓ correct
   • B.The will remains valid because it was properly executed.
   • C.The will is partially revoked only to the extent necessary to provide for the spouse.
   • D.The will remains valid unless the husband challenges it within six months.
   • E.The will is voidable at the election of the surviving spouse.

   Why A is correct

   Under s.18(1) Wills Act 1837, a will is revoked by the testator's subsequent marriage unless it appears from the will that it was made in expectation of that marriage. Here, the will was executed in 2020 with no indication of contemplating the 2022 marriage. The estate therefore passes on intestacy. Option B incorrectly suggests that proper execution prevents revocation by marriage. Options C, D and E misstate the automatic and complete effect of revocation by marriage under the statute.

3. Question 3

   A testator's will appoints his daughter as sole executrix and leaves his entire estate to a named charity. The daughter predeceases the testator. The testator dies without amending the will. No substitute executor is named in the will. What is the effect on the grant of representation?

   • A.The will remains valid; the charity, as sole residuary beneficiary, has priority to apply for letters of administration with the will annexed under r.20 Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987.✓ correct
   • B.The will lapses entirely because the sole executrix has predeceased the testator, and the estate passes on intestacy.
   • C.The court will appoint a substitute executor using its inherent jurisdiction.
   • D.The daughter's own personal representatives automatically assume her role as executrix by operation of law.
   • E.The testator's closest next of kin has priority to apply for letters of administration with the will annexed, because the executor has failed.

   Why A is correct

   **Why A is correct** The death of a sole executor before the testator does **not** invalidate the will; the will remains fully operative as a testamentary instrument. However, because there is no surviving executor able to prove it, a **grant of letters of administration with the will annexed (c.t.a.)** must be obtained before the estate can be administered: *Senior Courts Act 1981, s.119*. The order of priority for a c.t.a. grant is governed by **r.20 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987 (NCPR 1987)**. Rule 20(b) gives priority to **the residuary beneficiary or beneficiaries** (or their representatives). Where, as here, the will gives the entire residue to a single charity, that charity ranks ahead of all other potential applicants under r.20 and is therefore the person entitled to take out the grant. **Why the other options are wrong** - **B** – Incorrect. The failure of an executor appointment does not affect the validity of the will or the beneficial gifts in it. The will stands; only the mechanism for extraction of the grant is affected. - **C** – Incorrect. The court has no general inherent jurisdiction to appoint a substitute executor in non-contentious circumstances. The NCPR 1987 provide an exhaustive code for determining entitlement to a c.t.a. grant. - **D** – Incorrect. The 'chain of representation' under *s.7 Administration of Estates Act 1925* allows an executor's executor to act, but this applies only where the executor **survives** the testator and then dies without fully administering the estate. It has no application where, as here, the executor predeceases the testator. - **E** – Incorrect. Next of kin (persons entitled on intestacy) appear lower in the r.20 priority order than residuary beneficiaries under the will. Because the charity qualifies under r.20(b), the next of kin's entitlement under r.20(d) is subordinate and does not arise unless the residuary beneficiary renounces or is passed over.

4. Question 4

   A woman dies intestate, survived by her husband and two adult children from a previous marriage. Her estate is valued at £600,000. All assets were held in the deceased's sole name. The husband and deceased had been married for 15 years and lived together until her death. What is the husband's entitlement under the intestacy rules?

   • A.£270,000 statutory legacy plus half the residue absolutely.
   • B.£270,000 statutory legacy plus life interest in half the residue.
   • C.The entire estate of £600,000.
   • D.£322,000 statutory legacy plus half the residue absolutely.✓ correct
   • E.Half the estate with the children sharing the other half.

   Why D is correct

   Under s.46 Administration of Estates Act 1925 (as amended by SI 2020/1305), where the intestate leaves a spouse and issue, the spouse takes a statutory legacy (currently £322,000 from 26 July 2023) plus half the residue absolutely, with the other half on statutory trusts for the issue. Option A uses the previous £270,000 figure which applied before July 2023. Option B incorrectly imposes a life interest which was abolished by Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014 s.1. Options C and E misstate the statutory distribution.

5. Question 5

   A testator executed a will leaving his house to his son "provided he survives me by 28 days". The son survived the testator by 15 days before dying from injuries sustained in the same car accident that killed the testator. The son's will leaves everything to his wife. Who is entitled to the house?

   • A.The son's wife, because the son survived the testator.
   • B.The testator's residuary beneficiaries, because the condition was not satisfied.✓ correct
   • C.The son's estate, because survivorship clauses are void for public policy.
   • D.The testator's next of kin on intestacy as the gift has lapsed.
   • E.The son's wife under the Law of Property Act commorientes presumption.

   Why B is correct

   The gift contains an express conditional interest requiring the son to survive 28 days. Since he survived only 15 days, the condition precedent was not fulfilled and the gift fails, falling into residue. Option A is the strongest distractor but ignores that mere survival is insufficient when an express longer survivorship period is stipulated. The s.184 Law of Property Act 1925 commorientes rule (option E) is irrelevant where actual order of death is known. The gift has not lapsed (option D) but rather failed to vest due to the unsatisfied condition.