How do we bring wills into the 21st century?

Hi Sally,
The theory is that 16yr olds can get married, join the army, live alone and make many of their own other decisions; so they should be able to make a decision about who they leave their estate too as well.
Currently in England & Wales the testamentary age is 18yrs and in Scotland is it currently 12yrs old.

If you can marry, join the army, leave school, consent to sexual activity, live alone and make their own medical decisions at 16 then why not be allowed to choose who gets to enjoy your worldly possessions after you’re gone? In Scotland the ‘testamentary age’ is 12!

Oh my god! that’s such a difference in age. I think its a good idea to change the age to 16, the above points are so valid, maybe 12 is a little young in my opinion.

I agree. But science is really simply a distillation of averages. For instance, it also ‘proves’ that teetotallers die before those who drink alcohol – and drink fairly substantially. The real issue is that we know fairly little about the human body and it’s dangerous to suggest selective studies can provide conclusive ‘proof’ about anything, really.

Great job

Indeed: you said “Science has provided the evidence, surely its high time our outdated laws were changed to coincide with this. and I merely pointed out a couple of facts: that ‘Science’ research is a snapshot process, in effect, whereby peer reviews and the work of other researchers in the field can often produce wildly differing findings subsequent to the original research being published. I then offered an example of this, whereby ‘Science’ has proved that alcohol intake beneath a certain level has been demonstrated to extend life expectancy. In that instance, interestingly, various special interest groups continue to produce their own ‘research findings’ which dispute what the now comprehensive meta-analyses have shown.

In short, a scientist of any calibre will never state anything with absolute confidence.

Science is not just statistics but about examining information and constructing a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon. As the science develops new information might show the hypothesis to be incorrect or incomplete and new ones put forward – all to be questioned and refined or replaced. One aim being to use a hypothesis to predict so advancements can be attempted. Nothing is ever proven, but the technique has provided enormous beneficial to us.

As long as you are sober when you make it 🙂 you are so right Malcolm moderation is key. The problem with making a will at such a young age, apart from those in my above posting is, your circumstances can change a number of times if you live long enough which necessitates frequent updating at great expense.

Apologies mods! My social conscience was telling me that wee bairns were more important than ‘things’ on this occasion.

…but the UK had lower rates than Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Latvia.

“You cannot legally sign a Contract until you are 18 (Contract Law) however a guardian or someone over 18 can legally sign for you after you are 16, and you can claim the property as your own, although you don’t technically own it until 18.”

A sixteen year old might want to pass on their mountain bike and smartphone to their best friend. Maybe there is a simple solution to help young people who don’t own considerable assets. It might at least help prepare them for making a will when they are a little older and have responsibilities.

When a young person dies or is killed there is an enormous amount of compassion – or at least there should be – which should ensure that the youngster’s possessions are passed to whomever he or she wishes. But the world is not always a kind and rational place and the person who gave the boy or girl the mountain bike or smart phone might want them back or wish them to go to a different person. I think there needs to be a presumption, enshrined in law, that a young person’s wishes or instructions, as made known in a dated note, letter or e-mail, and possibly by word of mouth if done in the hearing of two people who both confirm it, should prevail over any other decision. The correlation of wills and death is unlikely to increase the propensity to make a will among teenagers but a simpler, softer form of transfer, knowing it to be binding and subject only to the intervention of the court in the event of a dispute, might appeal and be effective up to adulthood. After that a will should be the proper vehicle but improved by the use of comprehensible language and no necessity to involve a solicitor unless the estate is is taxable, there are the interests of minors to protect, land or property are involved. or there are other legal complications. In a very large number of cases no will is necessary at all and the intestacy rules are quite adequate for administering the estate – so long as people understand what they imply.

I was interested to read previously here of surprise that the act of marrriage immediately invalidates an existing will. I thought this was a well-known and perfectly understandable concept given that the spouse or civil partner immediately becomes the foremost next of kin. When plighting their troths the marrying couple used to say ” . . . and with all my worldly goods I thee endow” but this is no longer part of the legal wedding vows unless specifically decided by both parties so the concept of equal ownership has fallen by the wayside.

We know the day we are born and all the other significant milestones in our lives but will never know when we shall die even though we pass the day every year. Being fully prepared is the only remedy if we wish to secure our legacies but this message is never delivered to the rising generations.