News and current affairs

The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, drafted seven versions of his will regarding his estate from 2011 to 2013. Each version of the will has different contents regarding whether Lee Kuan Yew's former residence at 38 Oxley Road should be demolished, and whether the estate should be divided equally between his three children, namely Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, his eldest son Lee Wei Ling, his eldest daughter Lee Wei Ling, and Lee Hsien Yang, his second son, or whether an extra share should be given to his daughter Lee Wei Ling. . The eldest son Lee Hsien Loong questioned the final version of his will. He feared that because only his sister-in-law Lin Xuefen's lawyer was present when it was drafted, without clear explanation and legal advice, he unknowingly added back the clause of demolishing his former residence. However, Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang denied this. Both parties The people and horses each interpreted the validity of the will.

Full news content:

http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/international/20170617/37686500

The events involved in this news should, in principle, be handled in accordance with the laws of Singapore. However, if it is handled in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China, the deceased made multiple wills before his death, and the contents of the successive wills conflict with each other, according to the provisions of Article 1220 of the Civil Code , the conflicting part shall be deemed to be revoked. Therefore, in principle, the content of the last will should be the basis for subsequent estate disposal. However, the legislator ensures that the will is the true intention of the testator and prevents disputes from arising afterwards. The legislative design of the will is an important act and must be done in accordance with the legal method to be effective. As for whether the decedent actually knew clearly and made his true intention when drafting a will, in practice, it is judged whether it complies with the legal requirements of the will and whether it complies with the testator's true intention, and then confirms the validity of the will. The following is an explanation of the common cases of invalid will in practice. Of.

1. Without the testator personally dictating the intention of the will: the testator should designate a witness and the testator should dictate the will in person to ensure the authenticity of the content of the will. The dictation should be in words and should not be expressed in other actions. The witness should When a person asks a question, he only nods or shakes his head to indicate it, and cannot interpret the testator's "dictation". For example, in the Civil Judgments No. 58 and 175 of the Taiwan High Court in 2010 and 2018, because the will was first drafted by a ghostwriter or witness and then read out the contents of the will, the decedent only said "Well" afterwards. ” and “nodding” to confirm the content of the will, it shows that the intention of the will in question was not spoken by the testator in person in front of the witnesses, was not designated by the testator, or was not spoken by the testator in person. Therefore, the court found that the will was inconsistent with the statutory requirements for a ghostwritten will and should be invalid. In addition, if the testator is unable to explain in an oral statement or words due to treatment or illness, although in practical cases, ghostwriting wills are completed through word cards and body language, the legal provisions of Articles 1190 to 1195 of the Civil Code should be strictly followed in practice. It is not allowed to use other methods such as word cards and body language to replace the "oral" will essential elements (see the Kaohsiung Branch of the Taiwan High Court, Chongjia Shangzi Civil Judgment No. 1, 102).

2. The witness was not personally present and heard the whole process: According to the literal meaning and legislative intention of Article 1194 of the Civil Code, when the testator is the testator, the witness is always present and heard the whole process and can certify and sign it. Necessary to ensure that the contents of the will do not violate the true intentions of the testator. However, if the will is written in advance and the witness has not heard the contents of the will dictated by the testator, there is no way to know whether the ghostwriter took note of the contents of the will as dictated by the testator. It is obviously impossible to confirm that the witness knows and confirms that the contents written down by the ghostwriter are consistent with the will. The will in question is inconsistent with the oral will of a person, so the ghostwritten will in question should be invalid. This is reflected in the Civil Judgment No. 289 of the Taiwan High Court in 1997 and the Civil Judgment No. 17 and 101 of the Taichung Branch of the Taiwan High Court in 101 Please refer to the civil judgments No. 107 and 13 of the year Chongjia Shangzi in 102.

To sum up, it can be seen that in most cases of will invalidation in practice, except for the audio and video materials at the time when the will was made, the court mostly relies on the facts testified by witnesses, and even if the witnesses testify that the testator’s true intention is consistent with the will, The court also held that the will was invalid because it did not comply with the legal form. Therefore, when making a will, it is recommended that a professional lawyer or notary be present to assist in order to avoid the common situation of invalid will in practice. It is also recommended to cooperate with on-site video recording, which can better avoid disputes afterwards.