Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • leespot
    • By leespot 18th May 17, 12:04 AM
    • 547Posts
    • 433Thanks
    leespot
    FIL died intestate
    • #1
    • 18th May 17, 12:04 AM
    FIL died intestate 18th May 17 at 12:04 AM
    Hi all,

    FIL died intestate in March. He was married (but separated, widow was living elsewhere) with 2 kids under 18 to his wife, the lads lived with the FIL, then there is my partner and her two sisters (all over 18).

    The house was solely in the FIL name, no mortgage. Approx value 500k. No other estate that we're aware of as money was held in joint account.

    The widow was in a relationship with someone else and has decided to move the guy into the property (FIL was in process of divorce but died before it got very far). The widow has now asked my partner and sisters to sign away any claim to the estate.

    What would the correct process be for doing this? Can one sister sign on all three sisters behalves? The widow is suggesting only one needs to sign the forms to relinquish any claim.

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:41 AM.
Page 3
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 19th May 17, 2:09 PM
    • 2,646 Posts
    • 2,086 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    Quite possibly. The problem seems to be a considerable conflict of interest.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 21st May 17, 9:01 PM
    • 547 Posts
    • 433 Thanks
    leespot
    The request was confirmed over the weekend - the widow is requesting the 3 daughters to sign away any claim to the estate, in effect leaving everything to her and her two children. She was also adamant that only one of the 3 daughters needs to sign a form to agree to this.

    They will be taking advice on how next to proceed with things because they are not comfortable signing away their rights to claim anything from the estate.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:48 AM.
    • elsien
    • By elsien 21st May 17, 9:14 PM
    • 14,787 Posts
    • 36,795 Thanks
    elsien
    Why do they not just tell her to take a running jump?
    Just because the wife is requesting it doesn't mean they have to give it any consideration.
    All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

    Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.
    • Mojisola
    • By Mojisola 21st May 17, 9:16 PM
    • 27,826 Posts
    • 70,680 Thanks
    Mojisola
    They will be taking advice on how next to proceed with things because they are not comfortable signing away their rights to claim anything from the estate.
    Originally posted by leespot
    Why do they not just tell her to take a running jump?

    Just because the wife is requesting it doesn't mean they have to give it any consideration.
    Originally posted by elsien
    This ^.

    No need to pay for advice - just say no. That's the end of the issue.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 21st May 17, 9:20 PM
    • 547 Posts
    • 433 Thanks
    leespot
    This ^.

    No need to pay for advice - just say no. That's the end of the issue.
    Originally posted by Mojisola
    They just want clarification as to what the process is that she has to follow - they're not going all guns blazing looking for a fight, and they've told her they won't be signing anything away. They really just want to know that if she tells them something it is correct and that they're not being led a merry dance.
    • paddy's mum
    • By paddy's mum 22nd May 17, 10:31 AM
    • 3,460 Posts
    • 12,496 Thanks
    paddy's mum
    Leespot - may I suggest, as politely as I know how, that if you discuss this whole matter with an adviser or solicitor in the future, you make real effort to describe the people involved in the common terms for those individuals.

    It is clear that your dislike/mistrust of your 'mother in law' 'the ex-wife' 'the FiL wife' ' has led to great confusion among readers of this thread. Why not just say "their mother" or "the widow" since anything that makes it easier to understand a situation is a good thing, don't you think?

    You don't have to like your employer in order to make others understand who you are talking about when you mention 'the boss'.

    Good luck with sorting out what is obviously a very complex and emotional situation.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 22nd May 17, 10:50 AM
    • 547 Posts
    • 433 Thanks
    leespot
    Leespot - may I suggest, as politely as I know how, that if you discuss this whole matter with an adviser or solicitor in the future, you make real effort to describe the people involved in the common terms for those individuals.

    It is clear that your dislike/mistrust of your 'mother in law' 'the ex-wife' 'the FiL wife' ' has led to great confusion among readers of this thread. Why not just say "their mother" or "the widow" since anything that makes it easier to understand a situation is a good thing, don't you think?

    You don't have to like your employer in order to make others understand who you are talking about when you mention 'the boss'.

    Good luck with sorting out what is obviously a very complex and emotional situation.
    Originally posted by paddy's mum
    Thanks for the wishes of luck.

    I've amended most of the posts to try and make it clearer for people not able to follow what was written.

    I have no relationship with the widow, there is an only a feeling of mistrust based on what she has been asking people to do.
    • Tuesday Tenor
    • By Tuesday Tenor 29th May 17, 1:11 PM
    • 970 Posts
    • 1,282 Thanks
    Tuesday Tenor
    I assume that in the sad circumstances, the two minors want to be re-united with their mother, and want to continue living in the family home; the usual aim is least disruption to the children re living arrangements and schooling. It sounds like these two lads are experiencing considerable disruption ( with mother's new partner in the picture as well) , and they have our sympathy. But as no other concerns about their welfare, or other suggestions for living arrangements, have been made, I will assume them staying in the house with their returned mother, plus now her new partner, is probably the situation that will prevail.

    I don't get the sense that any of the older half-siblings are wanting to get their hands on their share NOW at the expense of further disrupting the young boys; they just, quite reasonably want to protect their share.

    There is absolutely no reason for any of the older children should give up their right to their part of the inheritance, while accepting that, while the young sons need a home, and the only estate asset is the property, their share may share may need to be part-ownership of the home.

    However, a further complication to be aware of is that a property cannot be owned by more than 4 people/trustees. The widow might be trying to simplify things by getting the older siblings to renounce their shares. The older siblings should not be pressurised into doing this, and are right to stand firm and seek legal advice. I'm not sure what structures/mechanisms/buy-outs will be necessary to make this situation work out. However, it must be possible, even if more complicated than usual.
    Last edited by Tuesday Tenor; 29-05-2017 at 1:17 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,924Posts Today

6,001Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin