Lottery Win

DUTR

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Yes ,their children just tried to make the post more clear:D

So the pwc could make a claim against our will but only if the children are under 18 then it would be down to the children themselves to claim?
Would legal aid cover the cost of their claims if our solicitor was prepared to defend them?

We haven't left them penniless, she has a house, a car and savings accounts for the children all of which we have paid 100% for whilst we are alive;)

What's worrying about a lot of these posts, is that all are assuming the NRP may meet their maker before the PWC or even the dependent children.
To be fair and honest if those have really looked into all this they would already know that the off spring would be entitled to little more than the current maintainance schedule per annum until they are of age, from the estate (if anything at all) unless stated in the will otherwise.

Dancing_Shoes

If the pwc was to die we would welcome the children to live with us in an instant and would provide for them as we always have done. We have had our wills done and was told that they were watertight but this thread raised alot of questions and worries for me. It worries me that our children would have to put up with what we have had to put up with. I am sure if I really posted the half of it many people would be very schocked how much we have given her for her to still be so horrible to us. Even the solicitor was completely baffled as to her reasons behind it all
I always thought (in my stupidity probably:o) that unless you could prove that someone was not of sound mind when making a will you had very little chance of contesting who they had and hadn't left money to

LizzieS_2

marksoton wrote: »

Sorry to disagree again Lizzie but what i stated still stands. The PWC is in no way related to the NRPP. Even if the child did inherit the money after 28 days ( highly unlikely as the process would take time ) the family of the NRPP would have a legitimate and real chance of " recouping " the money.

TBH the scenario is highly unlikely, and if you were the NRP or NRPP you ain't gonna be around to care anyway !

I never suggested the pwc was related to nrrp.

Are you saying the nrp estate cannot gain the inheritance just because he died before probate was obtained? If so, where does it say that?

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

Yes ,their children just tried to make the post more clear:D

So the pwc could make a claim against our will but only if the children are under 18 then it would be down to the children themselves to claim?
Would legal aid cover the cost of their claims if our solicitor was prepared to defend them?

We haven't left them penniless, she has a house, a car and savings accounts for the children all of which we have paid 100% for whilst we are alive;)

If under 18 pwc can make a claim. If over 18 plus under 19 and still in f/t eduction (eg as in csa) child could claim. Possibly could claim over 19 if still in f/t education (as could do currently under childrens act).

There is only a small window of opportunity to make a claim. That is, it should be challenged before probate is granted - once the estate is then distributed it cannot be challenged.

I doubt legal aid would apply, even if it did, the money recovered would be first used to offset the legal aid bill. There's also the implication of costs, if she loses, she would be bound to pay your solicitors costs.

It is your first sentence in post 37 which is niggling me - if your parents hand out money, they are effectively helping her cause (assuming she would and even could follow that path).

I wouldn't worry much as you've already said her (their for DUTR) are nearly 18.

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

If the pwc was to die we would welcome the children to live with us in an instant and would provide for them as we always have done. We have had our wills done and was told that they were watertight but this thread raised alot of questions and worries for me. It worries me that our children would have to put up with what we have had to put up with. I am sure if I really posted the half of it many people would be very schocked how much we have given her for her to still be so horrible to us. Even the solicitor was completely baffled as to her reasons behind it all
I always thought (in my stupidity probably:o) that unless you could prove that someone was not of sound mind when making a will you had very little chance of contesting who they had and hadn't left money to

Financially dependency is where this could come in, but as I said it is only for a limited time (no more than could have applied if hubby alive) and it certainly cannot rule your childrens entire lifetimes.

On the same note of financial dependency, your childrens needs would count too, so if there was not enough in the pot, hers would not be treated better.

Those policies - if not already done so, it may be worth writing in your will that the proceeds are to repay your mortgage. It limits available cash.;)

LizzieS_2

DUTR wrote: »

What's worrying about a lot of these posts, is that all are assuming the NRP may meet their maker before the PWC or even the dependent children.
To be fair and honest if those have really looked into all this they would already know that the off spring would be entitled to little more than the current maintainance schedule per annum until they are of age, from the estate (if anything at all) unless stated in the will otherwise.

It started with one scenario. It could equally go the other way:
Unmarried pwc dies, child then dies, nrp then dies - married nrrp effectively gets everything all those deceased had.

Hinted in post 41 at the amount/duration.

jamespir

i think that if the man wins the lottery and hes not with the ex wife/partner he should keep it all its his money if he won it before the relationship ended then yes he should give an amount to the kids


because if it was the other way round the ex wife/partner wouldnt be so willing to give the money to her ex would she

Dancing_Shoes

One of our life policies is specific to our mortgage if that makes sense so that would be paid off. So she couldn't claim and make our children sell their house??
My parents would never see any children go without so if the pwc children were under 18 then they would ensure they were sent money (seperate to will) which would be however much they could afford and then they have been told to help towards costs for cars etc in the future. One of the reasons we can't give it to the pwc is because she would not give it to the children, we have sent money in the past for a so called holiday for one of her children and this turned out to be a lie and was spent elsewhere:rolleyes:
We have always provided for her (their) children and will continue to do so whilst we are living but I would not expect my children to provide for them. I think to put my mind at rest i will have a quick chat with my solicitor on monday to double check all these points;)
I wonder how many people in this position know that without a will it could end up with the pwc?

Dancing_Shoes

LizzieS wrote: »

It started with one scenario. It could equally go the other way:
Unmarried pwc dies, child then dies, nrp then dies - married nrrp effectively gets everything all those deceased had.

Hinted in post 41 at the amount/duration.

I can honestly say hand on heart that in this scenario I would refuse her money and ensure it was passed to her blood relatives, why should I be entitled to any money she has built herself but then I am not her.....

LizzieS_2

Dancing_Shoes wrote: »

One of our life policies is specific to our mortgage if that makes sense so that would be paid off. So she couldn't claim and make our children sell their house??
My parents would never see any children go without so if the pwc children were under 18 then they would ensure they were sent money (seperate to will) which would be however much they could afford and then they have been told to help towards costs for cars etc in the future. One of the reasons we can't give it to the pwc is because she would not give it to the children, we have sent money in the past for a so called holiday for one of her children and this turned out to be a lie and was spent elsewhere:rolleyes:
We have always provided for her (their) children and will continue to do so whilst we are living but I would not expect my children to provide for them. I think to put my mind at rest i will have a quick chat with my solicitor on monday to double check all these points;)
I wonder how many people in this position know that without a will it could end up with the pwc?

Both sets of children already have houses. Your own children will need someone to pay the mortgage, whereas hers (sorry DUTR ) will have her to pay towards their home. End result is the home is more important than ongoing monthly support to either set of children - so no she could not do that.

Tell your parents not to hand any over money until the will is totally finalised - avoids any chance of it looking like there is an intention to provide some support.

The only capital she could make a claim against is cash type savings (includes things like stocks/shares) and then only for the maintenance that would otherwise have been paid. After the mortgage, the rest can be apportioned but unless you are really well off (in death), there would not be enough to cover the full costs of all children (bear in mind here, yours are younger and would need support for longer & yours have lost more income due to having no parents).

Got called away, sorry for delay in finishing this.

Why was the trusts not a good idea? On the downside, it does give an easier chance to try claiming, but at least it cannot hold up the rest of the estate distrubution. I'm thinking more on the lines of picking trustees, eg one of your parents and a solicitor - legal & personal knowledge for any claim. Trusts don't have to be passed to children until age 25.

Incidently, if your hubby died first, there would be no scope for a challenge on what would then be your will (provided you lived for at least 28 days after his death).