families wills

Mojisola

onlyroz wrote: »

If your mother died intestate then her husband will inherit everything

On an estate of this size, the mother must have left a will otherwise her estate would have been distributed according to the intestate laws. Her husband wouldn't have inherited it all.

Of course, the mother's estate might have been much smaller if the bulk of the £1m+ was brought into the marriage by the husband.

Emmzi

once again I ask why *legally* (not morally) do you feel you have the right to question the distribution of the estate?

Until you can answer this in a clear and unemotional manner, no one is going to be able to help.

I would start with
- how long ago did mum die and what was in her will (if she had one) then;
- what was in step dad's will?

Can you please summarise these.

meritaten

I realise you have had a shock OP - but your posts are not clear.
you say that mum intended that all four children inherit equally.
but stepdads will left most of the money to one child and only £2000 to the rest of you. is that right?
What did mums will say hun? from what you say there was a considerable amount of money. did mum leave a will?

gibboking

Hi I pointed Selfish to this forum as she is at a loss as to what to do. She has had a bit of a shock and was looking for advice or people who have been through similar situations, not sympathy.
There are 4 Children, 3 blood siblings (step children to the deceased) and an adopted sibling.
She (and her brother)were under the impression that the estate would be spilt equally 4 ways when the time came.
This was not the case and OP and brother each got £20k, adopted sibling got £50k and the other blood sister is set to get the rest of the estate which could total £1.2m + The sister getting the larger share was the main carer as everyone else worked full time, but everyone pulled their weight when possible.
Selfish might come along later and give more info - that is up to her. I just thought I would clarify what she has already said.

Emmzi

thanks gibboking. still depends what info there is on mum's will but it isn't looking good from what you write. Ethical behaviour and the law are not always a match.

System

Legally it sounds as if there would be no grounds for disputing the will, unless the mother left specific instructions which were binding.

Realistically the father perhaps felt the Carer should receive most because from the sound of it she did most proportionately ( I am basing that on the fact that the others worked full time, ) and remembering that she will have a good chunk of that taken in inheritance tax.

Marisco

gibboking wrote: »

Hi I pointed Selfish to this forum as she is at a loss as to what to do. She has had a bit of a shock and was looking for advice or people who have been through similar situations, not sympathy.
There are 4 Children, 3 blood siblings (step children to the deceased) and an adopted sibling.
She (and her brother)were under the impression that the estate would be spilt equally 4 ways when the time came.
This was not the case and OP and brother each got £20k, adopted sibling got £50k and the other blood sister is set to get the rest of the estate which could total £1.2m + The sister getting the larger share was the main carer as everyone else worked full time, but everyone pulled their weight when possible.
Selfish might come along later and give more info - that is up to her. I just thought I would clarify what she has already said.

Why was she under that impression? Did her mam always say that is how it would be divided? Did the money belong to the mother before she met the stepdad, or was it his? If it was her mothers', then she should have left a will saying that the money was to be divided 5 ways - 4 kids and stepdad. I thought (could be wrong) that the spouse only inherits the first £250,000, and the rest is divided between the kids if someone dies intestate? If the money belonged to both of them or step dad alone, then he can divide it any way he chooses. I'd certainly not sniff at 20 grand!!!!

pollypenny

Did the carer give up work to look after the father?

Maybe he felt she deserved more.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Perhaps we are overlooking something.

Did anyone say 'Everybody will get exactly the same amount of money, irrespective of whether they made a huge contribution or a small one'

or did they say

'You will all be treated fairly'.


Or did everyone just assume that they'd get 25%?



Caring for a relative isn't compulsory. It's easy enough to refuse, whether someone works or not. So rather than assuming that the eldest had no choice but to do it, because they didn't have anything better to do, for example, the Deceased felt that she had made a sacrifice of her time and energy that should be recognised.

Perhaps being treated fairly meant that the person who made the most physical effort to help got a comparative share of the estate, the person who made the next effort got the next highest and then those who provided the least help - whether they wanted to or not, whether work, kids or parties was the cause - got the least.