SQE1 FLK2 Wills and the Administration of Estates Sample Questions July 2024

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Last Update: 23 July 2024


The answers, solutions, and explanations provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of potential responses to the given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers. Alternative valid responses may exist for many questions. If you believe an answer is incorrect or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will make the necessary amendments if we deem it necessary. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods and procedures presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee any specific outcomes in academic testing, whether formal or informal.


Question 1


An entrepreneur dies unexpectedly without having updated their will produced 10 years prior, which leaves their entire estate to a charity they were once actively involved with. Since the creation of the will, they married and had two children. The spouse believes that the outdated will does not reflect the deceased's final wishes and seeks legal advice regarding the distribution of the estate.


Considering the circumstances, how is the estate likely to be distributed?


  • A. The estate is distributed to the charity as per the will.
  • B. The estate is divided equally among the spouse and children.
  • C. Intestacy rules apply, and the spouse and children have entitlements to the estate.
  • D. The will is upheld, but the spouse is granted a reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
  • E. The entire estate passes to the government as bona vacantia.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Under the intestacy rules, which are triggered by the effect of the entrepreneur's marriage after the will was made, the will is considered null and void. Therefore, the estate does not pass to the charity but is instead distributed according to the rules of intestacy, granting entitlements to the spouse and children.


Option A is incorrect because a will is invalidated by the subsequent marriage of the testator, making it impossible for the estate to be distributed to the charity as per the will.


Option B is incorrect as the rules of intestacy specify precise shares of the estate for the spouse and children, not an equal division among them.


Option D is incorrect because the question's scenario does not apply under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Act allows for certain claims against the estate but does not directly impact the validity of the will as marriage does.


Option E is incorrect since estates pass to the government as bona vacantia only when there are no surviving relatives entitled under the rules of intestacy, which is not the case here.


Question 2


After the passing of their mother, two siblings discovered a letter in her desk indicating her wish for her elder child to distribute her jewelry collection amongst the family, according to personal notes she had made. Before a formal grant of probate, the elder sibling follows these wishes, distributing the jewelry as described in the notes. Later, the elder sibling decides they do not wish to act as the executor and attempts to step down from this responsibility.


Which action best aligns with the legal principles concerning the elder sibling's ability to renounce their role as executor?


  • A. The elder sibling can renounce their role at any time before a grant of probate if they have not intermeddled in the estate.
  • B. As the elder sibling has already acted on the deceased's wishes concerning the estate, they are considered to have accepted the role of executor and cannot renounce.
  • C. The elder sibling can renounce their role as executor after distributing the jewelry, provided no formal actions have been taken.
  • D. The elder sibling can choose to only administer parts of the estate they prefer, effectively partially renouncing their executorship.
  • E. They can reverse the distribution of the jewelry, renounce their role as executor, and appoint another family member in their place.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. Distributing the jewelry as per the deceased's notes constitutes intermeddling in the estate. Thus, the elder sibling is deemed to have accepted the role of executor and cannot now renounce it.


Option A is incorrect because the elder sibling's actions of distributing the jewelry demonstrate an embodiment of executor duties, which is considered intermeddling, rendering any attempt to renounce ineffective.


Option C is incorrect because, though no 'formal' actions might have been taken in a legal sense, the actions taken unequivocally relate to the administration of the estate, hence intermeddling has occurred.


Option D is incorrect as executorship duties cannot be partially accepted or renounced based on preference; it is an all-encompassing role with responsibilities that cannot be selectively discharged.


Option E is incorrect because the renunciation process does not provide for reversal of actions taken prior to renunciation, nor does it allow for the appointing of substitutes by the executor.


Question 3


Mary, the executor of her late friend Peter's estate, discovers that the estate owes a substantial sum in inheritance tax and has several smaller debts to local businesses. She also knows that Peter left a cherished painting to his nephew, Tom, valued at £15,000. Considering the liquidity issues and the value of the estate's assets, including the painting, Mary decides to auction some of Peter's antique furniture to raise the necessary funds. After settling the inheritance tax, she promptly delivers the painting to Tom, leaving the estate with just enough to cover the outstanding debts.


Did Mary act appropriately in accordance with her duties as executor in the administration of Peter's estate?


  • A. Yes, Mary acted correctly by prioritising the inheritance tax and securing Tom's specific gift before paying the estate’s debts.
  • B. No, Mary should have sold the painting given to Tom to ensure all estate debts were covered before distributing any specific gifts.
  • C. No, Mary breached her duty by not first using the estate's entire liquidity to settle all debts before distributing specific legacies.
  • D. Yes, by settling the inheritance tax first and ensuring Tom received his legacy, Mary fulfilled her duties effectively.
  • E. No, Mary is personally liable for any shortfall in the estate’s funds for debt repayment, as she mismanaged the estate’s assets.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Under section 34 and Schedule 1, Part II of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, executors are required to settle all debts and liabilities of the estate before distributing any specific legacies. Specifically, Section 34 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 outlines the order in which debts and liabilities must be paid: funeral, testamentary, and administration expenses; debts owed to creditors, including inheritance tax; any remaining liabilities. Mary should have ensured that all the estate's debts were fully settled using the estate's liquidity and assets before distributing specific gifts such as the painting to Tom. By distributing the painting before settling all debts, she breached her duty as executor. Thus, she did not manage the estate's assets in accordance with the statutory requirements.


Option A is incorrect because according to the Administration of Estates Act 1925, executors must settle all debts and liabilities of the estate before distributing any specific legacies. Therefore, by distributing the painting before all debts were settled, Mary did not fulfill her legal obligations as an executor.


Option B is incorrect because it suggests that Mary should have sold the painting specifically. While the painting could have been sold to cover debts, the decision about which assets to liquidate lies with the executor, provided that all debts are settled before distributing any specific legacies. The critical point is that all debts must be settled first, not necessarily that the painting had to be sold.


Option D is incorrect because executors must settle all the estate's debts (including but not limited to inheritance tax) before distributing any specific legacies. Mary did not fulfill her duties effectively because she distributed the painting to Tom before ensuring all the debts were paid.


Option E is incorrect because while Mary did mismanage the estate by not settling all debts before distributing the painting, and could be personally liable for any shortfall in the estate's funds due to her mismanagement according to the Administration of Estates Act 1925, this is not the primary issue. The main problem is that she breached her duty by not following the proper order of settlement and distribution as required by law.


Question 4


Josephine, an acclaimed artist, established a trust to manage her extensive art collection. She granted her friend, Marco, a right to select any piece from her collection to keep upon her death. The rest of the collection is to be donated to a national art museum according to the terms of the trust. Marco has always admired a particular sculpture within this collection.


Upon Josephine's death, what will happen regarding Marco's right to select a piece from the collection?


  • A. Marco must purchase the piece at its appraised value for it to be excluded from the museum donation.
  • B. Marco's right to select a piece is void as it contradicts the principle aim of the trust to donate the art to a museum.
  • C. The sculpture Marco admires will automatically be allocated to him, followed by the remaining collection's transfer to the museum.
  • D. The trust will terminate upon Josephine's death, and the entire collection will form part of her personal estate.
  • E. If Marco decides not to select the sculpture, it will form part of what is donated to the museum.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. Upon Josephine's death, Marco has the right to select a piece from the collection, which in this case is the sculpture he admires. This right was granted by the trust established by Josephine, so the specific piece becomes Marco's property, and the rest of the collection will be donated to the museum as per the trust's terms.


Option A is incorrect because there is no requirement mentioned for Marco to purchase the piece; the trust grants him the right to select a piece as a bequest.


Option B is incorrect because the trust explicitly provides for Marco's right to select a piece from the collection, which does not void the primary aim of the trust but is an integral part of its terms.


Option D is incorrect because the trust does not terminate upon Josephine’s death; rather, its specific conditions are to be fulfilled, which include both Marco's selection and the donation to the museum.


Option E is incorrect because once Marco exercises his right to select, that piece is excluded from the donation regardless of his ultimate decision. The focus here is on his legal right to choose, as per the trust's terms.


Question 5


Jasmine and Alex co-owned a piece of land as beneficial joint tenants, where they operated a successful organic farm. Jasmine, passionate about environmental conservation, wanted to ensure that in the event of her death, her share of the land and business would go to an environmental charity. She outlined this wish in a new will but did not take any legal steps to sever the joint tenancy with Alex. Jasmine passed away unexpectedly shortly after making her will.


Under these circumstances, can the environmental charity claim Jasmine’s share of the land and business?


  • A. Yes, because Jasmine’s will clearly directs her share to go to the charity.
  • B. Yes, but only if Alex agrees to honor Jasmine’s wishes.
  • C. No, because the principle of survivorship means the share automatically passes to Alex, the surviving joint tenant.
  • D. No, unless the charity can prove Jasmine's intent to sever the joint tenancy during her lifetime.
  • E. Yes, if the charity was significantly involved in the farm’s activities during Jasmine’s lifetime.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. The principle of survivorship in a joint tenancy stipulates that Jasmine’s share of the land and business automatically transfers to Alex, the surviving joint tenant, without regard for Jasmine’s wishes stated in her will.


Option A is incorrect because the provisions of a will do not have precedence over the automatic transfer of property rights that occurs in a beneficial joint tenancy due to the right of survivorship.


Option B is incorrect since Alex's agreement is not relevant to the legal principle of survivorship governing joint tenancies; the transfer of Jasmine's share to Alex is automatic.


Option D is incorrect because without any legal action taken by Jasmine to sever the joint tenancy, just her intention alone, expressed in her will, is insufficient to alter the outcome determined by the right of survivorship.


Option E is incorrect because the involvement of the charity in the farm’s activities during Jasmine’s lifetime has no impact on the legal principles governing the transfer of property in a joint tenancy scenario.


Question 6


Oliver, a renowned artist, recently experienced a significant health scare that led him to reconsider the legacy he wishes to leave behind. He has voiced to friends his desire to allocate a substantial part of his estate to a foundation that supports emerging artists. However, Oliver has also exhibited signs of short-term memory loss and has moments where he becomes disoriented about current dates and times. Despite this, he has shown a clear understanding of his estate's extent and the nature of his bequest to the foundation during discussions with his solicitor.


Based on the principles outlined in the Banks v Goodfellow test, what is the most crucial factor the solicitor needs to consider when assessing Oliver's testamentary capacity to draft a new will?


  • A. Whether Oliver's short-term memory loss and disorientation about dates and times significantly impact his understanding of the will's nature and effects.
  • B. Whether Oliver has a detailed plan for the exact artworks and assets to be included in his bequest.
  • C. Whether Oliver's friends agree with his decision to support the foundation.
  • D. Whether the foundation has acknowledged Oliver's intention to leave a bequest.
  • E. Whether Oliver's existing will provisions are significantly altered by the new bequest.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is A. The solicitor must closely assess whether Oliver's short-term memory loss and disorientation significantly impair his understanding of the will's nature and effects. Following the Banks v Goodfellow test, for Oliver to have the testamentary capacity, he must possess a sound mind, memory, and understanding to comprehend the act he is engaged in, the extent of his estate, and the claims to which he ought to give effect.


Option B is incorrect because while having a detailed plan for the bequest is important for drafting the will, it does not directly correlate with the legal standard for testamentary capacity, which is more concerned with the testator's general understanding of his estate and the nature of his bequest.


Option C is incorrect because the agreement or approval of Oliver's friends has no legal standing in assessing his testamentary capacity.


Option D is incorrect because the foundation's acknowledgment of Oliver's intention does not affect his capacity to make a valid will.


Option E is incorrect because the extent to which the new will alters existing provisions does not directly impact the assessment of testamentary capacity; it is Oliver's understanding and intention that are paramount.


Question 7


Helena devised a will in 2020, leaving her cherished collection of rare books, valued at £200,000, to her close friend Lara. Helena, an avid collector, acquired these books over decades. However, to settle a considerable debt in 2022, Helena was compelled to auction her collection, which then garnered £270,000. Helena passed away in 2023 without making any revisions to her will post-auction.


What is the effect on the bequest to Lara following Helena's demise?


  • A. Lara is entitled to receive £270,000, the proceeds from the sale of the rare book collection.
  • B. Lara receives an equivalent portion of Helena's estate that matches the initial valuation of the books.
  • C. The bequest lapses, and Lara receives nothing due to the absence of the specific items in the estate.
  • D. Lara is entitled to other items from the estate with a value equal to the book collection at the time of Helena's death.
  • E. A constructive trust is enacted for Lara to claim the books from the auction buyer.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is C. The bequest lapses, and Lara receives nothing due to the absence of the specific items in the estate because of ademption, which occurs when a specific gift noted in a will no longer exists at the testator’s death. In Re Slater [1907] 1 Ch 665, it was established that when a specific item gifted in a will is no longer part of the estate at the testator’s death, the gift fails, and the beneficiary does not receive a substitute gift or compensation unless the will specifies otherwise.


Option A is incorrect because under the principle of ademption, Lara is not entitled to the sale proceeds since the specific bequest of the books is no longer part of the estate.


Option B is incorrect because the doctrine of ademption stipulates the failure of the bequest entirely; beneficiaries do not receive value equivalent to the failed bequest from the remainder of the estate.


Option D is incorrect because the estate law does not allow for substitution of adempted bequests with other assets of equivalent value.


Option E is incorrect because ademption does not lead to the creation of a constructive trust over the sold assets; constructive trusts are applied differently.


Question 8


Farah, having no immediate family, owns a valuable antique shop with her business partner, Leena. They had purchased the shop as an investment, though they had not explicitly discussed the details of succession. Wanting to leave her share of the business to her close friend, Niamh, to whom she feels indebted, Farah considers her options to ensure that her wishes are followed upon her death.


Which of the following would be the most effective step for Farah to ensure her share of the antique shop is inherited by Niamh?


  • A. Leave the situation unchanged, as her share will automatically pass to Niamh through the operation of law.
  • B. Draft a legally binding agreement with Leena outlining the succession of her share to Niamh.
  • C. Sever the business partnership to hold her share in the shop as a single proprietor.
  • D. Sever the joint tenancy and draft a will indicating her desire for Niamh to inherit her share of the shop.
  • E. Negotiate with Leena to buy her out and leave the entire shop to Niamh in her will.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is D. By severing the joint tenancy, Farah ensures that her share of the business is treated as a separate asset that will be included in her estate upon her death, rather than automatically passing to Leena through the right of survivorship. This change can usually be done through a written notice to Leena or a mutual agreement. Further, Farah needs to draft a will that specifically states her intention for Niamh to inherit her share of the business. This legal document will ensure that her wishes are followed after her death.


Option A is incorrect because without an explicit declaration, such as a will and or a severance of their business arrangement into a different form that allows for specific bequests, the share may not automatically pass to Niamh, especially in the absence of a legal family relationship or other arrangements.


Option B is incorrect because, while drafting an agreement with Leena is a good step, it is not sufficient on its own to ensure Niamh inherits Farah’s share because the right of survivorship would still apply. Farah needs to sever the joint tenancy.


Option C is incorrect because, while severing the joint tenancy in the property changes the manner in which the property is held and does not dissolve the partnership itself, this step alone does not ensure that Niamh inherits Farah's share. Farah would still need to take steps to ensure the share passes to Niamh, such as drafting a will.


Option E is incorrect since buying out Leena does not directly affect the succession of Farah's share to Niamh upon Farah’s death without a will specifying Niamh as the beneficiary. It is a more complicated step that might not align with Farah’s or Leena’s interests or intentions.


Question 9


Mary is a solicitor preparing a will for Thomas, a retired professor who wishes to bequeath his assets. Thomas recently suffered a mild stroke, leading to occasional confusion. Given the vital importance of ensuring Thomas has the requisite testamentary capacity, Mary contemplates on the appropriate legal measure to ascertain this.


Which legal principle should Mary rely on to determine if Thomas has the necessary testamentary capacity to formulate his will?


  • A. The Mental Health Act 1983 criteria.
  • B. The Banks v Goodfellow criterion.
  • C. The Clear Capacity Concept.
  • D. The Adult Capacity Act 2005 guideline.
  • E. The Testamentary Discretion Standard.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. The Banks v Goodfellow criterion is the correct legal principle for assessing testamentary capacity in England and Wales. It requires that a testator understands the nature of the act and its effects, the extent of the property of which they are disposing, the claims to which they ought to give effect, and no disorder of the mind that perverts their sense of right or prevents the exercise of their natural faculties in disposing of their property by will.


Option A is incorrect because the Mental Health Act 1983 predominantly deals with the treatment and care of individuals with mental disorders, rather than assessing testamentary capacity.


Option C is incorrect because there is no legally recognized 'Clear Capacity Concept' specific to testamentary capacity. It is a fabricated term for the purpose of this question.


Option D is incorrect because while the Adult Capacity Act 2005 pertains to Scotland and deals with individuals' ability to make decisions, it does not specifically set out the criteria for testamentary capacity in England and Wales.


Option E is incorrect because 'The Testamentary Discretion Standard' does not exist as a recognized legal criterion for assessing testamentary capacity within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.


Question 10


Jennifer's will contains a clause stating, 'I leave £10,000 to my friend Monica for the care of my Persian cat, Fluffy.' At the time of Jennifer's passing, Fluffy had been rehomed with another friend due to Jennifer's declining health, and Monica was unaware of this change.


Given Jennifer's inability to update her will following Fluffy's rehoming, what happens to the £10,000 bequeathed to Monica for Fluffy's care?


  • A. Monica receives the £10,000 as intended, regardless of Fluffy's rehoming.
  • B. The £10,000 gift to Monica lapses because the condition concerning Fluffy's care can no longer be fulfilled.
  • C. Monica is entitled to half of the £10,000 since Fluffy was rehomed before Jennifer's death.
  • D. Monica must use the £10,000 for the care of another Persian cat, if agreed upon by the estate's executors.
  • E. The £10,000 is redirected to Jennifer's estate for division according to the residue clause in her will.

Click to reveal answer

The correct answer is B. The bequest lapses because its specific purpose, the care of Fluffy, cannot be fulfilled due to Fluffy's rehoming prior to Jennifer's death, leaving Monica without entitlement to the £10,000 under the stated conditions.


Option A is incorrect because the purpose of the £10,000—Fluffy's care—is no longer applicable, thus negating Monica's entitlement under the specific terms of the will.


Option C is incorrect because the will's provisions do not allow for a partial fulfillment of the conditions based on Fluffy's status. The entire gift fails if its condition cannot be met.


Option D is incorrect as there is no suggestion in Jennifer's will that the money should be used for any other purpose than caring for Fluffy. Decisions about alternative uses of the bequest are not made at the discretion of the estate's executors without direct provision in the will.


Option E is incorrect because while the specific bequest for Fluffy's care lapses, redirecting these funds to the estate's residue requires an absence of alternate directions in the will, which is not indicated in the provided scenario.