View source for Re Strange (2012) MHLO 64 (LPA)

''The donor of a property and financial affairs LPA included the following guidance: "I wish my attorneys to provide for the financial needs of my husband in the same manner that I might have been expected to do if I had capacity to do so." The Public Guardian asked the court to consider whether the guidance needed to be severed as potentially contravening section 12 of the MCA 2005. In the application the Public Guardian referred to the case of Bloom (above), noting that a wife had no common law duty to maintain her husband and that the husband's common law duty would be abolished when section 198 of the Equality Act 2010 came into force, but noting also that various other legislation (see below) imposed a duty on a wife to maintain her husband. The court did not sever the guidance and explained the position in the following terms: "In the context of clauses in an LPA in which the donor makes provision for the maintenance of his or her spouse, there should be no distinction between male and female spouses and, in principle, such clauses should be treated as valid on the basis of the specific maintenance obligations imposed by statutes such as National Assistance Act 1948, section 24(1)(b) and Social Security Administration Act 1992, section 105(3), and the absence of any distinction between husband and wife in other legislation, such as the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975."'' [OPG summary - LPA case.]

==Note==
Summary from OPG section of Justice website.

'''Case title:''' Re Strange (an order of the Senior Judge made on 21 May 2012)

'''Listed under heading:''' Severance of invalid restrictions relating to gifts

==External link==
{{#bailii:no tran}}

{{lpa-summary-link}}


[[Category:LPA cases - severance of restrictions]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:No transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]