Contesting a will

John_Pierpoint

Sammie_ wrote: »

No it hasn't yet been conveyed to the Trust, the Solicitor says that his charges will go up to do that.. surprise, surprise!

I have a funny feeling that there was a change in the Land Registry regulations that make it a legal requirement to transfer the ownership into the names of the trustee(s), rather than leaving it sitting as owned by a corpse. I think it was at the end of the fiscal year about 3 years ago?
When my mum died my sister and I transferred the house into our personal names by submitting a form (assent) to the Land Registry - it cost about £150 half a dozen years ago [We did not want potential purchasers to know it was a probate sale and we were therefore "desperate" and purchaser's solicitor might charge them extra and take longer by checking out the probate etc. [But beware of trying to sell a house you have only owned for a month or two, mortgage companies are suspicious ]

This is rapidly turning into a solicitors' benefit fund.

What is the deep insecurity that makes women think they will be taking the house with them when they die? Is she worried her own children will let the council shove her into a cheap care home, when she cannot cope in her own home? Presumably there is nothing to stop her buying residential in care into the house??

You might like to check out the rules for the transferable nil rate band between spouses if the sums of money are likely to be over £325K.
In the case of a usual spouse situation, what sounds like an "interest in possession trust" for the benefit of the widow, should count as leaving the value of the house to the widow at the first death.
[At the other extreme I think there might be some restriction on the elderly gent entering into a marriage of convenience on his death bed to someone (with an "understanding" that the convenient wife would give the large majority of the tax free wealth back to the blood family).]
On a brighter note, check out the rights of a beneficiary to claim their inheritance is inadequate? I have a feeling they have 6 months in which to "Put up or shut up"?
http://www.rcsolicitors.co.uk/chiltern-family-law/making-a-will/guides-2/provision-for-family-and-dependants.htm

Who is step mother's solicitor? Does she realise that she will be giving him instructions to help himself to a chunk of the wealth.

Plus ca change...........

Savvy_Sue

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I have a funny feeling that there was a change in the Land Registry regulations that make it a legal requirement to transfer the ownership into the names of the trustee(s), rather than leaving it sitting as owned by a corpse. I think it was at the end of the fiscal year about 3 years ago?

Really? We have not been so advised ...

John_Pierpoint

Hi Sue,

I'm the trustee of some land of an estate that cannot be completely wound up because:

1. There are more than 4 beneficiaries.
2. There is a sitting tenant on a protected tenancy, who is determined to out live all of us.

To give you some idea of how long this arrangement has been in place, the land is not registered.

I am already the replacement executor/trustee and in reality the only active one.

My co-trustee has now died.

The solicitor who holds the deeds, was delighted to tell me that a change of trustee now has to be registered at the Land Registry and he would be happy to help.
[Don't worry, I double checked]

At the moment I'm soldiering on as the sole executor/trustee, as I am reluctant to spend the money, which would mop up at least a couple of year's rent.

[My voodoo doll of the tenant, isn't working too well:o]

Why register now?

We're keen to see all property owners reap the benefits of registration. As a result we're currently offering a discount of up to 25 per cent on the full cost of first registration for applications lodged voluntarily.
On 6 April 2009, two new triggers for compulsory registration came into force. Registration is now compulsory when land is transferred or vests in a new trustee by:

• a deed of appointment of a new trustee or a deed made in consequence of the appointment of a new trustee
• a memorandum executed as a deed evidencing the appointment of a new trustee and to which section 83 of the Charities Act 1993 applies
• a vesting order of the court made under section 44 of the Trustee Act 1925 that is consequential on the appointment of a new trustee.

It is also compulsory on the partitioning of unregistered land held in trust among the beneficiaries of the trust.
By choosing to register now, you can take advantage of a discount of up to 25 per cent on the fee you would pay on compulsory registration.

However I cannot find any evidence of a sanction such as a penalty, that can be imposed on someone failing to register change of legal ownership - in the case of SDLT there seems to be a deadline of 30 days - but that is imposed by HMRC - surprise surprise.

http://www.landreg.gov.uk/upload/documents/public_guide_002.html
http://www.landreg.gov.uk/upload/documents/pg6.html
http://www.landreg.gov.uk/upload/documents/public_guide_017.html
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/news/view=newsarticle.law?NEWSID=445746
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/about-us/press-listing/2012/property-fraud-free-measures
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/upload/documents/joint_fraud_practice_note.html
http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/about-us/press-listing/2009/new-triggers-help-pave-the-way-to-a-comprehensive-land-register

John_Pierpoint

You only get a maximum of one extra nil rate allowance.

But of course it can be more complicated than that:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/IHTM43030.htm

John_Pierpoint

Here is a link to a commentary on a court case, where a death bed marriage and will to cut out the two children of a former marriage in favour of the long established replacement partner but now brand new wife. [Was this just an exercise in IHT avoidance?]

If the link is followed through to the hearing for costs - and reading the verbiage in the legal judgement is very hard work - some interesting figures emerge.

It looks like the "the daughters" and "the new wife" were up to about £250,000 each in legal costs before they got into court for a 7 day hearing.
The interim award for costs is in the region of £500,000 against the loser and we can guess that the loser's own cost will be similar. With more to come once all the details have settled and "taxed" (in the legal sense).

It appears to be a struggle over a £4,000,000 estate, so there should be something left.

http://blog.anthonygold.co.uk/2012/02/bancroft-v-wharton-validity-of-a-deathbed-will/#more-1484

This "little" spat also demonstrates the importance of mentioning in the will everyone who thinks they would have an interest in the estate - thus making it clear what the testator intended for them and not that he had simply "forgotten" them. Though this can be a real problem if the beneficiary involved has indeed forgotten to keep the testator up to date with his/her current address.

Sammie_

My sister and I went to mediation in the end. My Dad's wife claimed that he did not leave her adequately provided for by an amount of £610 per month.

This we proved was not correct as we saw when her incomings and outgoings were produced at some stage which showed her slightly better off. But that was the plea.

At mediation it became clear that that was not her intention, she wanted part of the house... Money wasn't mentioned.

Her side took the view of "Well if they had divorced".. There is a court case that took that view and now that is the norm apparently.

Just filling you in here.

I cant gamble on my meagre savings of around £50K to have continued to the 'Court situation' so had to agree at mediation of a 60% to me and sis and 40% to her. No monthy money was asked for.

Of course I think it is all wrong, and unless you read all of this thread you wont really see why.

But now I have another question...

You have some very helpful members on your site Martin and I am hoping I can gain some answers.

The house is in Trust now, as it was in the beginning, she is able to live in it as long as she wishes, or sell it, downsize and take an income from the residue investment.

A guy we don't trust (heh) is one Trustee and another WAS a junior at the firm where Dad made his Will.

We were able, at mediation, to 'sack' the junior putting in place the son of my sister.

Big question, can we also sack the main man who we don't trust and put in place one of MY daughters?

John_Pierpoint

Sammie_ wrote: »

My sister and I went to mediation in the end. My Dad's wife claimed that he did not leave her adequately provided for by an amount of £610 per month.

This we proved was not correct as we saw when her incomings and outgoings were produced at some stage which showed her slightly better off. But that was the plea.

At mediation it became clear that that was not her intention, she wanted part of the house... Money wasn't mentioned.

Her side took the view of "Well if they had divorced".. There is a court case that took that view and now that is the norm apparently.

Just filling you in here.

I cant gamble on my meagre savings of around £50K to have continued to the 'Court situation' so had to agree at mediation of a 60% to me and sis and 40% to her. No monthy money was asked for.

Of course I think it is all wrong, and unless you read all of this thread you wont really see why.

But now I have another question...

You have some very helpful members on your site Martin and I am hoping I can gain some answers.

The house is in Trust now, as it was in the beginning, she is able to live in it as long as she wishes, or sell it, downsize and take an income from the residue investment.

A guy we don't trust (heh) is one Trustee and another WAS a junior at the firm where Dad made his Will.

We were able, at mediation, to 'sack' the junior putting in place the son of my sister.

Big question, can we also sack the main man who we don't trust and put in place one of MY daughters?

Her side took the view of "Well if they had divorced".. There is a court case that took that view and now that is the norm apparently.

As you have expressed it, that seems totally illogical - in divorce both side would have prepared some sort of statement of affairs and then there would probably be an attempt to treat both sides to half of the combined total; after a long marriage.

Is this what has happened ?

Turning to the house and its interest in possession trust:
Why do you not trust the non family trustee ?
If push came to shove your nephew could simply refuse to sign anything.
My bet it that they may well be united by the burden of having to insure, maintain the house & decide the fate of the widow, when she "can't cope" any more

A more expensive option would be for the two sides to agree a neutral professional as a third trustee - but the fees charged annually would have to be paid somehow !

How old is the widow?.

Have you given any thought to future potential InHeritance Tax (IHT) issues ?

What are the terms of this settlement - who pays what in the on going expenditure?

Is this the equivalent of having a tenant who pays no rent?

Offer to arrange for your children to maintain the property because they may well be the ones to inherit it.

Been there done that, provide you all get along, it can be almost a fun summer activity.