I read that there has been a big increase in disputes over wills, partly because more people are severely hard-up and could do with a sizeable inheritance to bail them out. Partly also because the older generation are often very well-off as a result of rocketing house prices and are more likely to leave substantial sums to their descendants.
I was lucky that my mother's will was very simple and was dealt with quite easily, with neither myself, my sister, my brother in law or my niece disputing it in any way. She hadn't decided to leave £10,000 to the local cats' home or her favourite hairdresser.
Jenny and I have both made wills and hopefully they're equally straightforward and won't prompt nasty legal wrangles. We certainly haven't left money to any unlikely recipients like the local cats' home (if there is one). Nor have we left anything to any political party.
We did use a solicitor to write our wills, to ensure they were fully legal and wouldn't be challenged because of faulty wording or an invalid witness or some other beginner's error. DIY wills are tempting but open to subtle pitfalls.
But once a will is contested, the dispute can go on for years, with a large chunk of the inheritance vanishing in solicitors' fees. It's not unusual for legal fees in a long-running dispute to clock up hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Better not to give lawyers a field day.
Lawyers - a field day? Come on, lawyers need to eat too and, trust me, the finesse expected of them does take its toll.
ReplyDeleteOther than that? Lucky me - and my siblings. Our parents have nothing to leave. Other than this earth which they appear reluctant to do.
As an aside: With increasing longevity inheritance and its value to your offspring becomes less and less. Few people benefit from being left a "fortune" when they themselves are old enough to have amassed one.
Main thing is to actually MAKE a will. Even one to benefit the cat home. Cats won't fight over it.
U
PS My son has made a will in my favour. Sole beneficiary. Beat that if you can.
Ursula: Yes, some lawyers are barely breaking even but others are doing very nicely. When I dealt with my mother's estate, it cost me nothing. If a solicitor had done it, they would have charged a percentage of the value of the estate, which would have been quite a hefty sum. As for people amassing a fortune, that's not very likely if you're paying for children, paying a mortgage, paying care home fees etc.
DeleteA colleague who was a specialist in the area of wills said that if people thought criminals were dreadful people, they should just look at families at each other's throats over a succession....no holds barred!
ReplyDeleteMy husband's mother died, leaving her estate equally among the three children....the brother and sister took anything of value before having an assessment made, then the brother, the executor, did not pay out for five years, forcing my husband to get a solicitor who had to threaten court action to have the monies released.
Helen: Five years to get the money? That's outrageous. I distributed all my mum's money in 4½ months. I bet a solicitor would have taken much longer.
DeleteHe had stripped out most of what she had been left by her father long before her death, with a crooked Belgian notaire...and the five years was the cherry on the top!
DeleteHelen: I'm sorry you had to go through all that. What a devious character.
DeleteYes, wills can be troublesome especially if there are many family members. My father preceded my mother in death and when she passed, she had a will that divided everything between my brother and myself. We did not quarrel over anything and worked together to empty our childhood home which was later old and the proceeds split between us.
ReplyDeleteBeatrice: That all sounds very amicable. If only more people were as sensible!
DeleteI think if I had a lot of money I would put a clause in there that if anyone disputed my will, they would get nothing.
ReplyDeleteMary: An excellent idea!
DeleteMy father lived to age 94 then whatever he had left went to my step-mother who outlived him. My mother had nothing left to inherit; she gave me the one painting I wanted before she died. Dave's mother left everything to his father. His father divided half his estate equally between his kids and the other half equally between his grandkids. Dave and I are each other's beneficiaries, with our only child inheriting whatever is left when both of us are gone. None of us felt there was anything unfair about any of that. We are lucky in our families.
ReplyDeleteLinda
Linda: You were lucky indeed. But some people seem to be disputatious by nature.
DeleteMany disputes are not about the money or property but highly emotional and grief stricken. I've been astonished over arguments about an old teapot or the Waterford crystal collection, paintings and photograph albums. I had to make an unusual will myself so got a good solicitor who had dealt with such matters before.
ReplyDeleteMoney arguments are often of the 'dad loved you best' variety.
XO
WWW
www: My family never argued about things like teapots or Waterford. In fact my mother never offered me anything while she was alive, which was fine as I'm not sentimental about personal possessions.
DeleteOn the subject of wills, one of my favourite cases was Pennington v Waine in 2002 at the Court of Appeal.
ReplyDeleteAda Crampton had owned shares in a company. A few months before her death, she asked her auditor to immediately transfer shares to her nephew, as a gift. She signed the required stock transfer form and gave it to her auditor. She ultimately wanted her nephew to become director in her company. This needed a consent form which Ada and her nephew signed. Unfortunately, the auditor failed to register that transfer which was needed for him to become director.
Ada then dies. Her shares become part of her estate which fall under the intestacy rules. Then, there is a fight between the whether the assets should vest in the will’s recipients (arguing that no transfer had technically been concluded) or whether it should go to her nephew as a beneficiary under this ‘sort-of’ trust.
The old rule in equity was the traditional so-called “Re Rose” principle which asks whether Ada had done everything required to ‘effect’ the transfer. This is quite a tough rule, but it made sense because you’re effectively shifting title of assets to somebody else and you shouldn’t really do that unless it’s absolutely clear that that is what would have happened. In law they call it “perfecting an imperfect gift”. On the other hand, it meant that if there were some obscure technical rules for the transfer of property (such as requirements on foreign stocks being transferred into English brokerage accounts) then you could trap the intended beneficiary. The Court of Appeal reversed this test by saying that the test is whether it was unconscionability to deny that the transfer had taken place. This is supposed to have made the law a bit better.
Anyway, this is one of my favourite trusts and wills case that I always enjoyed. I thought you might find it interesting. The nephew ended up getting his directorship!
You can read more here = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennington_v_Waine
Liam: Well that just shows how complicated dealing with a will can get. And it shows how you can easily be tripped up by some obscure legal nicety you know nothing about. Good to know it all worked out well for the nephew.
DeleteI made one with Chris when we bought the house. I guess that still stands unless I make a new one
ReplyDeleteJohn: As I understand it, if Chris marries someone else, all pre-marital wills are invalidated. You need to check on that.
Delete