Worksheet 9- Family Provision- Restriction on Testamentary Freedom

 The general principle is that the individual has total testamentary disposition-
freedom to distribute.

 This general principle is circumscribed by recent legislation- Inheritance

(Provision for Family and Dependants) Act.

(a) The Act permits certain dependants to apply to the court for reasonable
financial provision or maintenance on the ground that the disposition of the
deceased’s estate by will or intestacy does not provide adequate
maintenance

(b) The Act speaks to a lack of reasonable financial provision so that if something
is left to a person, that person can apply to get more regardless of the
quantum

 Persons Who May Apply under Section 4 (2) Inheritance Act:

(a) Wife, husband, spouse of the deceased.

(b) Former wife, husband, spouse of the deceased

(c) Unmarried daughter of deceased

(d) Child under 18, 21, 23 years-**Note that the Act is applicable to a child who is
under the age of twenty-three years who is pursuing academic studies or
receiving trade or professional instructions

(e) Child suffering from physical or mental disability regardless of

age

(f) Adopted child

(g) Child of the family- a child of the deceased’s husband or wife who had been
accepted as one of the family by the deceased

(h) Child “en ventre sa mere” at the death of the deceased- child in the womb

(i) Parent of the deceased who was maintained or entitled to be maintained by

the deceased

(j) Person wholly or partly dependent on the deceased

 **It is important to note that restriction on testamentary freedom applies
whether there is a will or not

 How The Court Treats Family Inheritance Provision:

(a) Widow/ Widower

Re Watkins
The plaintiff married E and there were 2 children of the marriage. He deserted
her and she subsequently remarried thinking E had died. Her second husband
W, died and the plaintiff applied under the Inheritance Family Provision Act for
reasonable maintenance to be made to her out of W’s estate. On the question
whether in the absence of direct evidence of E’s death, the plaintiff could properly
be described as the widow and a dependant of W:

Held: The plaintiff was entitled to assume that E was dead and therefore free to
marry W, whose widow she must now presumed to be.

Re Clayton
The claimant husband was crippled in both legs and married the testatrix. She
died without leaving any provision to the claimant. Her estate was very small and
consisted mainly of a house she had before she married the claimant. The
claimant’s earnings were meager and he a small amount of saving but he
appeared to be able to maintain himself. However there was a prospect of
substantial dimunition in his income in the vent of his ceasing to be employed. He
applied for maintenance out of the testatrix’s estate.

Held: On claims under the Inheritance Family Provision Act, there was not a
greater onus of proof on a surviving husband than there was on a surviving wife.

In the present case, it was unreasonable for the testatrix not to have made
provision for the claimant. In the circumstances, a reasonable provision
would be that the executors should pay him $400.

**It is not enough for the judge to think that some provision or a larger
provision should have been made for the plaintiff. He has to go much
further than that.

**The overall governing considerations is that the court has to find that it
was unreasonable on the part of the deceased in all the circumstances to
have made no provision or not to have made a larger provision to the
claimant.

**The Act places no bottom limit to the value of the estate in respect of the
application
 Here the “circumstances” were that the claimant was a cripple and
naturally handicapped in his earning capacity and in looking after himself.

(b) Former wife/husband/spouse

BNS Trust
The respondent was separated from her husband and accepted a lump sum
payment for maintenance. Her husband died and she took out a summons under
the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act asking for reasonable provision for
herself out of her late husband’s estate. An order was made in her favour against
the trust company which was appointed executor of the deceased’s estate. The
trust company appealed against the order.

Held: Allowing the appeal. The jurisdiction to make provision for a deceased’s
former spouse under the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act did not extend
to making an order in favour of a person to whom the deceased had been married
but whose marriage had not been dissolved or annulled .

My emphasis- The Act defined former spouse as “person whose marriage

with the deceased was dissolved or annulled.

(a) Unmarried Daughter

Sivyer v Sivyer
The deceased died intestate and at the time of his death there were only 2
persons having a call on his bounty.
The applicant, his step-daughter by his second wife and the defendant, his third
wife and widow. The step-
daughter was 13 years old when he died and in the care of the local authorities
without any means. The widow
who was 60 years old deposed that at the time of her marriage, she had been
earning $895 per annum from
employment which she had given up at the request of the deceased. She also
deposed that her pension was less
than what she would have got had she remained in employment. There was no
evidence as to any other
means which she might have. The deceased’s estate consisted principally of the
house he had inherited from his
second wife, the step-daughter’s mother. On application by the daughter for
reasonable provision for her
maintenance out of the deceased’s estate:

Held: The deceased’s failure to make any provisions for the daughter’s
maintenance was unreasonable and a
 reasonable provision for her maintenance would be ordered by way of lump
sum.

**A daughter who has not married but who is not suffering from any kind of
mental/physical disability is
clearly a dependant in whose favour, the court has power to make an order.

**What has to be considered is whether, having regard to all the

circumstances of the case, the deceased
has failed to make reasonable provision for the maintenance of such a
daughter and what is reasonable
must depend on the circumstances of the daughter, the circumstances of
the testator, the amount of his
estate, the claims of others on his bounty and all the surrounding
circumstances including the conduct of
the applicant.

**The plaintiff at the date of his death, a child of under 14, living with foster
parents under the care of the
council and she had no means of her own. The third marriage was
unhappy from the start and lasted
only 2 years. Additionally, the whole of the deceased’s estate was derived
from his second wife.

 Reasonable Provision
(a) In determining whether reasonable financial provisions must be given to the
applicant an objective test is used. See:

Lewis v Baker
L died testate leaving a net estate of $14,000. He bequeathed $25 to his wife GL
from whom he had separated 6 years prior to his death. Apart from a property to
an aunt, L bequeathed the remainder of his property in equal shares to his
mother, the aunt and three children of his marriage and a women friend. GL
applied for an order for reasonable provision to be made for her maintenance out
of the testator’s estate.

Held: A most important consideration which the court should have in mind is the
extent to which if at all, the testator was under a moral obligation to the
person claiming relief.

**Before making an order, a court taking all the relevant factors into
consideration must be satisfied that it was unreasonable for the testator to
make no real provision for his wife.

**What is reasonable is relative and must depend on the circumstances.

That he left his wife $25 was manifestly a disinheritance.
**Note however that the wife was rejected by the husband and she
accepted his rejection. The marriage was also an unhappy one and
accordingly, her application was dismissed.

Chamroo v Rookmin
On application for family provision, a judge determined the matter on the
affidavits of the parties. The estate was worth less than $10,000. Seven years
before the testator’s death, he and his wife separated and by deed it was agreed
that thereafter the husband would be under no liability to support her. The judge
concluded that the husband had no moral obligation to the widow to make
testamentary provision for her and dismissed her application.

Held: The jurisdiction of the court to order family provision is limited to

intervention when it can express the affirmative opinion that the husband did not
make reasonable provision for the applicant/dependant.

**Ordinarily, there is a moral obligation which a man owes his wife to make
reasonable provisions for her by his will, if he makes a will. There is also
ordinarily a moral obligation on the part of a man to make reasonable
provision for ant children he might have, whether born in or out of wedlock.

The deed agreed by the parties considerably weakens, although it does not
totally destroy the moral obligation devolving on a husband to make
provision by his will for his wife

**Other considerations might thereafter arise e.g. physical disability where

the wife becomes crippled and unable to work, which might revitalize and
strengthen the moral obligations of the husband to his wife.

But where as in the present case, there is no change of circumstances put

before the court and all that it has before it is that the parties agreed that
they would live apart and that they would support themselves, their
agreement must weigh strongly in ousting any moral obligation on his part
to provide for her

We must also bear in mind that his estate was not large. So in preferring
his children born out of wedlock and excluding the applicant who from a
practical point of view, had ceased to be his wife, it cannot be considered
an unreasonable act on the part of the deceased.

Re Goodwin
The question was whether the will made reasonable provision for the applicant
NOT whether it was unreasonable for the testator not to have made a larger
provision for the applicant.
 Re Moody
The deceased lived with her husband and step-daughter after her first marriage
in a house given to her as a gift from her mother. The step-daughter left the
family home got married and moved some distance away. She maintained some
contact with the deceased. The deceased’s first husband died and she married
the applicant who was then 61 years old. The couple lived in the deceased’s
house and after the applicant’s retirement, they lived on their combined pensions,
having little other means. The deceased became senile and had to be moved to
a nursing home where neither the applicant nor the stepdaughter had contact
with her. The deceased made a will leaving all her estate to the step-daughter,
stating that she considered that the applicant had adequate resources of his own.
The estate consisted almost entirely of the house. The applicant was 81 and had
continued to live in the house when the deceased died and savings of about
$6,000 and lived on his pension. The stepdaughter was 55 and lived alone in a
council flat and was entirely dependent on state benefits.

Held: When determining a surviving spouse’s application for relief, the court had
to apply a 2 stage test

(i) Whether the dispositions of the deceased’s estate failed to make

reasonable provision for the applicant.

(ii) If so, determining as a matter of discretion whether and to what extent

and in what manner financial provision should be made for the applicant.

**At both stages the test of reasonable financial provision was objective
based on the facts known to the court at the date of hearing.

**Accordingly, when dealing with an application by a spouse or divorced

spouse, the court was required to have regard to the applicant’s age, the
duration of the marriage and the applicant’s contribution to the welfare of
the family.

**And where the applicant was a widow/widower, the court was required to
have regard to the applicant’s notional rights if the marriage had been
terminated by divorce rather death since the intention of the Act was that
the acceptable minimum posthumous provision for a surviving spouse
should correspond as closely as possible to inchoate rights enjoyed by the
spouse during the deceased’s lifetime.

Applying that test, the applicant was entitled to some provision out of the
deceased’s estate and the court would therefore allow the appeal.

 Factors Considered in Making an Order- Section 7 Inheritance Act

(a) Size and nature of deceased’s estate. See:
Re Joslin
The testator by his will left all his property to M, a woman with whom he had lived
for 5 years and their 2 children without making provision to his wife. The
marriage, of which there was no surviving child took place 24 years before the
testator died and the evidence showed that the testator and his wife had been
reasonably happy together up until 5 years before he died and that from time to
time she had assisted him financially. When he met M, he left his wife and by a
separation agreement he agreed to pay her $1 per week. The wife had some
means and applied under the Inheritance Act for reasonable provision for her
maintenance. The value of the estate was $370. M had no means whatsoever.

Held: In the circumstances the wife was not entitled to have any provision made
to her by the court

The testator had to choose between his moral obligations to M and her
children and his obligations to his wife.

His estate being too small to provide for both. The choice he made was the
right one, being that his wife had some means whereas M was destitute.

(b) Any court orders affecting the estate

(c) Any prenuptial agreement

(d) Claims or rights of any other individuals on the estate (creditors)

(e) Any general obligations of the estate- taxes

(f) Compare benefits of respective applicants

(g) Mental and physical disability of the applicant or any other beneficiary that
may be affected by the court order

(h) Deceased’s reasons for making or not making provision for a particular
person- the conduct of the applicant towards the deceased will be considered
here

(i) Obligation of third parties to the applicants

(j) The nature of any provision made by the deceased for the applicant during
the deceased’s lifetime. See:

Thompson v Roach
The applicant and her deceased husband parted and until his death, they
lived separate and apart and the husband contributed nothing to her
maintenance or support. The wife brought no maintenance proceedings
nor in any other sought to obtain assistance from him. A judge dismissed
her application from family provision.

Held: The court should consider the extent to which, if at all, the testator
was under a moral obligation to the person claiming relief.

In these circumstances, what moral obligation did he have to provide for

her in his will?

Where we find here that the wife parted from her husband in
circumstances which suggest that there had been a complete break
between them, so complete that they had practically nothing to do
with each other, thereafter, they hardly ever saw each other and he
contributed nothing to her support for upwards of 10 years, there is
no moral obligation to provide for her by his will.

See also: Joslin (supra) and Lewis v Baker (supra)

(k) The duration of the marriage, applicant’s age and sources of the deceased’s
funds when applicant is a widow/widower

(l) Applicant’s standard of life. See:

Inns
A testator left a very large estate by his will and settled a sum of $85,000
upon trust to pay income to his widow during her widowhood. He also
devised his residence, a large house upon trust for sale but only with the
consent of his widow during her widowhood. And if unsold, to permit his widow to
reside there subject to her ability to keep the house in good repairs and condition
and insured. After her death or remarriage, the house was to be offered to the
local district council as an endowment fund. The widow applied for an order for
maintenance out of the estate, claiming that the testator intended her to go on
living in his residence but the income she received under his will was insufficient
to do so and that she had no property of her own.

Held: In all the circumstances and having regard to her position and her
husband’s wealth, the provision made for her by the will was reasonable and
sufficient.

The court must be satisfied that the provision is unreasonable. The court
must also take into account the relations between the parties, their mode of
living and the size of the testator’s fortune.

**What would be reasonable provision for a farm labourer’s widow would in

ordinary circumstances be unreasonable for the widow of a wealthy man
 **No man could be compelled to leave any part of his estate to any person
who is a dependant still less, could he be compelled to make provision that
his wife should be compelled to live in circumstances similar to those in
which during his lifetime he and she lived . The Act is not designed to bring
about such compulsion

**The Act proceeds upon the basis that a testator should continue to have
testamentary disposition provided that his disposition as regards
dependants should be capable, having regard to all circumstances of
being regarded by the court as reasonable.

(m) Statement by the testator which goes to his state of mind.

Note
however that this is not the overriding concern. See:

Franklyn v Biddy
The testator was married to the plaintiff who left the matrimonial home after 7
years of marriage, taking all the furniture and other articles. Ten years after the
marriage the defendant became the mistress of the testator and so remained
until his death. After appointing the defendant sole executor of his will, the
testator bequeathed all his real and personal estate to the defendant save and
except the sums of $150 and $25 which he bequeathed to his sister and the
plaintiff respectively. The plaintiff applied for an order of maintenance out of his
estate, claiming that, at all material times during his lifetime she was dependent
on him for support and maintenance. Oral and written evidence showed that she
had deserted the testator and that her whereabouts were unknown to him.

Held: Oral statements of the testator were admissible to ascertain the

testator’s reasons for his dispositions even though they were not in writing
and might not strictly be evidence which was admissible in a court of law.

A testator’s disposition should not be disturbed unless it was found that it was
unreasonable for the testator to make no provision for the dependant applying or
that it was unreasonable of him not to make a larger provision

**Interference with a testator’s will was not to be governed by the personal

inclination of a judge, if he were the testator. But rather what a just and
wise testator ought to have done in all the circumstances of the case.

The plaintiff had deserted the testator for good and had not shown any sufficient
reason for the court to exercise its discretion or disturb/vary the testator’s
disposition.

 Orders the Court Can Make:

 (a) lump sum payment- more likely for outside children
(b) annuity/monthly or periodic payment
(c) specific payment or specific purpose
(d) interim relief order- Section 8 Inheritance Act
(e) secure assets- court can do this by issuing a Mareva Injunction to prevent
dissipation
(f) order or provision to prevent transactions intended to defeat the application-
Section 13-16 Inheritance Act

 Time Limit for Applications

(a) Application for relief must be brought within 6 months from the date
administration is taken out or from the date the grant of probate is
issued, NOT from the date of death

(b) An applicant can apply for an extension of time. See:

Salmon where the court said:

(i) Discretion is unfettered but exercised judicially

(ii) The onus lies on the applicant to establish a basis for getting relief

(iii) Promptness in making application is very important- it helps if

application is filed within 2 weeks after expiration of time

(iv) Court will look at whether circumstances have changed irreparably in

relation to the estate

(v) Court will look at whether refusal of application would leave the
applicant without redress

(vi) Court will look at whether there is an arguable case with reasonable
prospect of success. See also:

Re Dennis
A father gave his son S $90,000 during the father’s lifetime, which the son
dissipated. On the father’s death, he left $10,000 plus a life interest in a trust for
$30,000. S was liable to pay $50,000 as capital transfer tax for the $90,000 and
would be liable to bankruptcy because of that debt. He sought permission of the
court to bring proceedings out of time for reasonable financial provision out of his
father’s estate.

Held: The applicant did not have an arguable case because the payment of tax
could not amount to maintenance and so the application would be dismissed

Whytte
 When an applicant dies before trial or the hearing of the matter, the case ceases
to exist

(vii) Court considers how the application is brought- by originating

summons (FDCF) supported by affidavit evidence containing:

- locus standi- who is the applicant, why is the application being made,
attach exhibits supporting status (medical and birth certificate)
- when deceased died
- persons beneficially interested in deceased’s estate
- financial obligations of the estate e.g. taxes, mortgage, grant of probate-
therefore exhibit tax receipts, etc.
- prove assets belonging to the estate

**Note that testamentary capacity is not an issue in this type of application

therefore it applies whether there is a will or not.

**Note also that an order must usually be registered on the probate

Worksheet 12- Intestacy

 Intestacy occurs when:

(a) Person dies and leaves no will

(a) Person dies leaving a will which does not dispose of his property at all – total
intestacy.

(c) Person left a will which does not dispose of the entire estate – partial
intestacy.

 Difficulties with intestacy

(a) The estate is automatically distributed as of law, thus persons benefit from
the estate who the deceased did not wish to benefit
(b) Nobody is control of the estate legally although the Administrator General can
act in this vein. Note that a number of things must be put in place before
the Administrator General can act.
(c) The only time a beneficiary assumes control over the estate is when he
obtains the relevant court order, usually letters of administration

FACTORS TO CONSIDER

 Table of Distribution – Section 3 Intestates’ Estates and Property Charges

Act
 Who can apply for LA on intestacy and order of entitlement in the residuary
estate:

- Spouse- the surviving spouse of the deceased which includes

common law unions

- Children- the children of the deceased or the issue of any such child
(where the child has died before the deceased and leaves issue-
grandchildren of the deceased.)
.
- Parents - father and mother of the deceased

- Other eligible relatives- brothers and sisters of the whole blood,

brothers and sisters of the half blood, grandparents, uncles and
aunts of the whole blood, uncles or aunts of the half blood

- The Crown- where there is no relative or other person who falls in

any of the categories above, the estate passes to the Crown “bona vacantia”.

** Note that the Crown may provide for dependants of the intestate and other
persons for whom the intestate might reasonably have been expected to make
provision.

 Surviving Spouse
(a) That person is entitled to benefit first and gets the bulk of the deceased
estate.

(b) Note that spouse includes common law unions and he/she would have to
make preliminary application by way of Fixed Date Claim Form showing
his/her status as cohabiting spouse.

(c) Without an order of the court declaring a person in a common law union a
spouse, that person could not apply for Letters of Administration because the
Administrator General would not accept the form of particulars from that
person claiming to be a spouse.

(d) A widow or widower or a divorcee is captured in the definition of single

man/woman. However such a person must have been single for 5 years or
more during the period he/she and the intestate were together. In other
words, if one of the parties were married to someone else other than the
intestate, a decree absolute must have been granted in order for that person
to benefit on intestacy.

(e) Spouse is entitled to:

- personal chattels absolutely- furniture, household effects, articles for
personal use, bicycles, stables, horses, domestic animals, motor
 vehicles and accessories BUT it does not include furniture, motor
vehicles or other effects used at the time of the deceased exclusively
or principally for business purposes or money or securities for money.

- $10,000 or the sum equal to 10% of net value of estate (excluding

personal chattels) whichever is greater, free of death duties and cost.

- interest at rate of 10% per annum (or as varied by Minister) is paid on

sum payable until paid.

- the whole or a portion of the residue of the residuary estate after

providing for the preceding items and it shall be apportioned as follows:

(i) no child or parents of the intestate- surviving spouse takes

the whole of the residue (except where a child dies before the
intestate and leaves issue (grandchildren) who survives the
intestate, the issue takes share that child would have been
entitled to)

(ii) only one child of the intestate- surviving spouse takes

2/3rd of the residue

(iii) more than one child of intestate – surviving spouse gets 50%
of the residue

(iv) surviving parents of intestate but no child or other issue–

surviving spouse takes 2/3rd of residue.

 Children
(a) Children born out of wedlock benefit because under the Status of Children
Act, there is no discrimination with respect to children born out of wedlock

(b) For an illegitimate child to benefit, the intestate’s name must be on that child’s
birth certificate, otherwise paternity must be proved. The mother can do so by
making an application to the Family Court of the Supreme Court for a formal
order acknowledging that the deceased is the father of the child. The
application should e supported with affidavit evidence and exhibits proof of
maintenance in the affidavit supporting application.

(c) Children en ventre sa mere-unborn children do not automatically benefit on

intestacy. The general rule is that if a person dies intestate leaving an unborn
child, that child cannot qualify to benefit on intestacy. However an application
may be made on that child’s behalf pursuant to the Inheritance (Family
Provision for Family and dependants) Act.
 (d) If the children are minors, their portion of the estate must be held upon
statutory trusts.

(e) If children are adults, they get entitlement instantly

(f) If the intestate leaves no spouse, the children are entitled to the residuary
estate

(g) If the intestate leaves a spouse, children entitled to the residuary estate after
the entitlements are given to the spouse- 1/3 rd if one child, 50% if more than
one child.

 Parents
(a) If there is no spouse or child – parents take the residuary estate- in
equal shares if there is more than one parent

(b) If there is a spouse but no children - parents take residue after

spouses entitlement, so parents in this case would get 1/3 rd

 Other Eligible Relatives

If intestate leaves no spouse, child or parents the residuary estate devolves on
other relatives in the following order:

(a) Brothers and Sisters of the whole blood of the intestate, or the issue of
any deceased brother or sister of the whole blood (the latter predeceasing the
deceased and leaving said issue).

(b) Brothers and Sisters of the half blood of the intestate, or the issue of any
deceased brother or sister of the half blood (the latter predeceasing the
deceased and leaving said issue)

(c) Grandparents of the intestate

(d) Uncles and Aunts of the whole blood of the intestate or the issue of any
deceased uncle or aunt of the whole blood (the latter predeceasing the
deceased and leaving said issue)

(e) Uncles or Aunts of the half blood of the intestate or the issue of any
deceased uncle or aunt of the half blood (the latter predeceasing the
deceased and leaving said issue)
 ** Note that the residuary estate is to be held on statutory trusts for the above
groups in the order listed.

RESEALING
What is it?
Resealing is a procedure by which a grant of representation obtained in a
Commonwealth country is sealed with the seal of the Supreme Court of Jamaica and is
thereby made as effective as a grant made here.

Circumstances in which application made

Applications to re-seal are usually made in circumstances where a deceased person
has:
1. either left assets to be administered within more than one probate jurisdiction,

2. or in other cases, in order that legal proceedings with respect to the estate of a
deceased person may be brought or defended within another probate
jurisdiction.

Procedure does not extend to grants of representation from non-commonwealth

countries eg USA
It is a convenient and relatively expedient procedure as it obviates the necessity of
applying for an ancillary grant which would otherwise be necessary. Jamaica limits the
probate jurisdiction from which resealing applications can be made as the facility does
not extend to non-commonwealth countries such as the USA.

If grant is issued in the U.S., you have to start de novo (from scratch

Advantages of Resealing
(i) Don’t have to do affidavit of due execution because grant already been issued in
overseas jurisdiction.

(ii) Don’t have to mark the will

(iii) Don’t have to get document called a Probate/ LA With Will Annexed/ LA

(iv) Don’t have to do affidavit in proof of death

**Although resealing a grant can be done through a power of attorney, allways

use proving executors to reseal grant so that the nature of grant doesn’t change
for example to resealed grant of LA with Will Annexed.

Procedure to Apply for Resealed Grant

 Apply to the Registrar to reseal grant.

 Registrar will issue a notice authorizing you to proceed to reseal the grant.

 Advertise notice of application to reseal by publishing it in Gazette or daily

newspaper.

 When the advertisement comes out take out the tear sheet or page of the
Gazette to show you have properly advertised.

 Do affidavit of advertisement.

 Draft appropriate documents and execute them

 Stamp documents

 File the following documents:

- Resealed grant of probate

- Kalamazoo copy of grant of probate
- Certified copy of the will
- Kalamazoo copy of the will
- Photocopy resealed grant of probate and photocopy of the will
- Application to reseal grant of probate (akin to oath) exhibiting:
- Certified copy of the will
- Certified copy of grant of probate
- Copy notice/ advertisement (resealing)

- Affidavit of advertisement
- Exhibit legal notice advertisement (tearsheet)
 - Affidavit of delay if necessary

 If everything is in order, then you should get the resealed grant

**Note that the procedure for administering an estate as it relates to a resealed

grant is the same as with other grants save and except for step 2- that is,
obtaining the grant.

CONTENTS OF APPLICATION TO RESEAL GRANT

1. The full names, address and occupation of executors (for eg) must be
stated

2. Executors must state that a Grant of Probate of the Last Will & Testament of
deceased was granted to them. It must state the place it was granted, the
Court that granted it, the date it was granted.

3. State that a copy of the Will to which the grant of probate relates is annexed
and marked for identification

4. State that a certified copy of the said Grant of Probate ( with copy will) is
annexed and marked for identification

5. State that at the date of deceased death he/she was domiciled within the
jurisdiction of the court.

6. State that the annexed Notice was inserted in the Daily Gleaner Newspaper
in Jamaica on X date.

7. The executors must state that they are authorized to apply to the Court to
reseal the said grant of probate with copy will.

8. The value of the estate to be administered locally- the value of the gross
personal estate and the net personal estate must be stated where
necessary. The value of the gross real estate and the net personal estate
must be stated where necessary.

9. Where an agent is applying, he must state that he is the agent lawfully

appointed by the executor and that he is authorized to apply to the court to
reseal the grant.
 10. Must contain affidavit of advertisement

11. Include affidavit of delay if you are applying to reseal more than 3 years
after deceased’s death whether or not grant was already obtained in
overseas jurisdiction.

12. The following should be exhibited where necessary:

(i) A certified copy of the Will to which the grant relates

(ii) A certified copy of the grant of probate

(iii) The Advertisement (Resealing)/notice which was inserted in the

Gazette or newspaper

(iv) Power of attorney

The oath must be executed by the applicant before a Justice of the peace if in Jamaica
or Notary Public/Commissioner of Oaths.

**Note that 8 clear days after notice is advertised, then you apply for resealed
grant