Wills - husband v children

meritaten

she needs to make a will! its fairly straightforward what she wants and wont cost too much and will save much anguish after she is gone!

meritaten

this is from wikipedia
In most contemporary common-law jurisdictions, the law of intestacy is patterned after the common law of descent. Property goes first or in major part to a spouse, then to children and their descendants; if there are no descendants, the rule sends you back up the family tree to the parents, the siblings, the siblings' descendants, the grandparents, the parents' siblings, and the parents' siblings' descendants, and usually so on further to the more remote degrees of kinship. The operation of these laws varies from one jurisdiction to another.

sounds to me like she needs to make the will otherwise it will go to hubby for the most part with the kids left with personal items!

Savvy_Sue

Your friend is naive.

ellay864 wrote: »

At the moment I'm OK with the will I have but I know when I get married next year I'll need to change it.

You know you can make a will 'in contemplation of marriage', don't you?

ellay864 wrote: »

She, and a few others, had said to go DIY but I'd pretty much decided against that cos of the situation which is very similar to hers. What's annoying is that I know paying solicitor fees will be tough (though worth it) but was prepared to do it...my friend is well able to pay for one but is planning not to!!

Annoying for you, but could save your loved ones a fortune in legal fees to sort out the mess from any problems with the will, not to mention stress and hassle at a time you don't need it!

BTW, I'd look for a STEP qualified solicitor. Google it ...

heretolearn_2

she is being totally naive. Why does she believe it will happen that way? She's just making up random stuff from no legal basis whatsoever.

She can't really care what happens after her death or she wouldn't be acting so dumb about it.

Sorry to be rude but people who are deliberately ignorant annoy me. So nothing happens as she hoped after she died. She's dead, she won't care. But won't the family she's made promises to be hurt that she didn't love them enough to sort things out properly.

Filey

She MUST MUST MUST make a will.

Otherwise there can be no end to the bad feeling and bitterness that can be caused. And unfairness. If she wants her assets to be certain of ending up where she wants them to go then it is essential she spends some money on a solicitor and gets everything sewn up as she wants it.

andyrules

Bubby wrote: »

Are they married?

It sounds quite straightforward what she wants to happen but it won't follow that path if she doesn't make a will. If it goes to her OH (which it will if they are married) then he is entitaled to leave the entire estate to his children on his death. If they aren't married I think (not 100% sure) that it passes to her next of kin who would be her children however, he would have a cliam on the house as he has been living there so to avoid any conflict i would strongly suggest she makes a will asap.

The next of kin is taken very seriously, and every effort is made to find them - even if they a distant speck on the horizon, of whom no-one has heard.

Agree - make a will.

sleepless_saver

When she makes the will, she needs to think about any inheritance tax implications as well.

There was a thread on here a while back where a child had been left a property, but her mother's partner was allowed to stay there till death. The child had to pay inheritance tax on the inheritance but could not afford it as the property could not be sold. They faced bankruptcy as a result.

So in this case, if the property cannot be sold because the partner is living there, she should make sure she leaves the children enough in other assets to cover any inheritance tax liability.

Tuesday_Tenor

I don't quite understand this last point.
Any Inheritance Tax due is paid from the Estate.

So, yes, if the mother intends the 2nd husband to continue living there, then there need to be other assets in the Estate from which to pay the inheritance tax.

Surely an intended beneficiary, or the Executor, can't personally be bankrupted by this situation.

Do you mean that in the unusual situation of the Estate comprising of a only a single property which is valued at over the IHT threshold then the ESTATE is declared bankrupt as it cannot pay the IHT? But in this case, wouldn't all assets have to be realised, i.e. the sale be forced by the bankruptcy? So the family home is 'lost' which was not what was intended at all, but residual beneficiaries get the residual estate.

Actually I CAN see a problem with that last sentence. If there were no other assets, 'residual beneficiaries' might not have been mentioned at all in a (poorly-worded) will, or might not be the people who were intended eventually to get the house ...

Perhaps someone with more knowledge could shed some light on this situation?