Andy executed a will in 1998 leaving money and property to his family members. However, after his death in 2005, there were issues with some of the gifts. His son Danny had died, but was survived by an issue named Albert, so the gift to Danny did not lapse. The original two bungalows gifted to his daughter Kathy were identifiable. However, the gift of his piano failed because he had sold it. The attempted alteration to the gift to his niece Lorinda was invalid due to lack of proper execution. The residue of the estate, calculated to be RM690,000, passes to his wife Linda as directed in the will.

1. RAWAIDA BINTIZULKIFLI
NURUL ALIAHBINTIMOHD HASYUDEEN
QUESTION 4
In 1998, Andyexecutedavalidwill inwhichhe made the followingdispositions:
(a) “RM100,000.00 to myson, Danny”.
(b) “my twobungalowsatJalanBangsar to my daughter,Kathy”.
(c) “my favourite pianotomymother,Martha.
(d) “RM15,000.00 to my niece,Lorinda”.
(e) “the residue of myestate isbe distributedtomywife,Linda”.
In February2001, Andysoldthe pianofor RM5,000.00. He alsoboughtanotherbungalow atJalan
Bangsar worthRM300,000.00 inJanuary,2003. On March 2005, hisson, Dannymetwithan accident
and wasin coma until the firstdayof April whenhe died.Survivinghimwashisson,Albert.On2nd
April 2005, Andydied.Afterhisdeath,itwasdiscoveredthatAndydrew ahorizontal line acrossthe
figure RM15,000.00 to Lorinda’sdispositionandinsertedaboveitthe figure of RM10,000.00. He
signedatthe side of the newfigure andputthe words “alteredon27th March 2005”. Andydied
leavingRM500,000.00 in cash (notincludingthe proceedsfromthe sale of the piano) and3
bungalows.
Advise the survivingfamilyastothe distributionof Andy’sestate.
ANSWER
There are a fewissuesinthiscase.The firstone iswhetherthe gifttoDanny failed?Secondis
whetherthe giftof bungalowsfailed?Thirdiswhetherthe giftof pianofailed?Fourthiswhether
there isa validalteration?Nextishowthe failedgiftsshouldbe distributed?
The firstissue iswhetherthe gifttoDanny failed?The generalrule isthatif the beneficiary
predeceasestestator,the giftwill fail due tolapse.Here comesthe exception,undersection25
providesthatif the beneficiarydiesleavingachildor an issue atthe time of testator’sdeath,the gift
shall notbe made fail.The predeceasedbeneficiarywill be entitledtothe saidgiftasif he died
shortlyafterthe deathof the testator.Inthiscase, Andymade a will togive RM100k to hisson
Danny.Danny predeceasedhim,leavinganissue namedAlbert.Inthe case of Re Meredith,the

2. testatorbequeathed £100tohisson.The sonpredeceasedhimleavinganissue.The giftwassaved
fromlapse butfor the existence of the issue.Applyingthatcase,DannydiedleavingAlbert.
Therefore,the saidgiftissaidtobe savedfrom lapse because of the existence of Albert.
The secondissue iswhetherthe giftof bungalowsfailed?A giftinthe will will failif the
subjectmatterof the will isuncertainorambiguous.Inthe case of Asten v Asten,the testatorowned
4 housesinSudeleyPlace.Byhiswill,he made separate giftstohis4 sons.The giftsfaileddue to
uncertaintyonwhichhouse shouldbe giventowhichson.Inthispresentcase,Andyowned2
bungalowsinJalanBangsar.The numberof bungalowsincreasedafterhe boughtanotheronin2001.
He intendedtogive Kathy2bungalows basedonhiswill made in1988. In thiscase,the bungalows
intendedbyAndytobe giventoKathycouldbe presumed.The original2bungalowswere the ones
intendedforKathy.Therefore,bydistinguishingAstenvAsten,the giftsare notfaileddue to
uncertainty.
The third issue iswhetherthe giftof pianofailed?A giftwill be failedif the subjectmatterin
the will isnolongerinexistence duringthe deathof the testator.Inthe case of Re Sikes,the testatrix
made a will of ‘mypiano’.Later,he soldit an d boughta new one. It washeldthat the new pianowas
not includedasthe intendedgift,asinthe will,‘mypiano’referredtothe oldpiano. Inthiscase,
Andyintendedtogive his‘favourite piano’.However,before hisdeath,he soldthe pianoforRM
5,000. Therefore,the subjectmatterinthiscase isno longerinexistence,the giftfailed.
The fourthissue iswhetherthe alterationmade wasavalidone?Inorderto have a valid
alteration,the alterationmustbe made inthe same mannerof executingthe will andthe original
wordsshouldnotbe apparent.Thisprinciple hasbeenlaiddowninsection15of the WillsAct.In the
case of Re Choo Kim Kiew,the testatormade an alterationwithoutanyattestationbythe witnesses.
It was heldthatitwas an invalidalteration.Inthiscase,Andy drawsa horizontal line overthe altered
part. He signedatthe side of the newfigure whichisRM10,000 andhe putthe words‘alteredon27
March 2005’. A horizontal line overthe alteredpartstill make the original wordsapparent,andAndy
doesn’tget2 witnessesattestedtothe alteration.Therefore,the alterationmade byAndywas
invalid.
The last issue ishowto calculate the residue of Andy’sestatewhichshouldbe giventoLinda,
hiswife?
RM 500,000 Cash leftbyAndy
+ RM 300,000 Price of new bungalow
+ RM 5,000 Piano’sprice aftersold

3. - RM 15,000 Givento niece,Lorinda
- RM 100,000 Givento son,Danny
RM 805,000- RM 115,000
=RM 690,000
Hence,LorindagetsRM 690,000 as residue of Andy’sestate.