Refusing money from a will

blossomhill_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

Not really refreshing if you frequent the Benefits Board. There are always plenty of people in this situation trying to give an inheritance away so that they can continue to claim benefits.

I imagine that's the case here and, fortunately, a Deed of Variation won't help as doing this would be considered deprivation of capital.

What a horrible cynical mind you have - I knew about the DoV simply because I had needed to sort out the same thing in my role as executor, to honour someone's wishes, NONE of the beneficiaries on benefits, just honourable people doing the right thing. There are plenty of them about, but maybe you don't move in those circles!

blossomhill_2

alwaysonthego wrote: »

doesn't change the fact that it is true

And if you are a board guide then shame on you for thanking the inappropriate post and reinforcing the cycnicism with your own post - I pity the people on the benefits board if they have you for a guide! You should be setting a better example

Dunroamin

blossomhill wrote: »

What a horrible cynical mind you have - I knew about the DoV simply because I had needed to sort out the same thing in my role as executor, to honour someone's wishes, NONE of the beneficiaries on benefits, just honourable people doing the right thing. There are plenty of them about, but maybe you don't move in those circles!

Considering the amount of time I spend on MSE, you're probably right!;)

Better to be a cynic than to be naive.

alwaysonthego_2

blossomhill wrote: »

And if you are a board guide then shame on you for thanking the inappropriate post and reinforcing the cycnicism with your own post - I pity the people on the benefits board if they have you for a guide! You should be setting a better example

I was agreeing with the poster that they could get into alot of bother if they were claiming benefits so they could make sure that they were aware, not sure why that is wrong. The info that was being conveyed was not incorrect, so unless I have missed something

blossomhill_2

alwaysonthego wrote: »

I was agreeing with the poster that they could get into alot of bother if they were claiming benefits so they could make sure that they were aware, not sure why that is wrong. The info that was being conveyed was not incorrect, so unless I have missed something

Yes you missed thanking post #3 which I am sure you would have done if your real intent was to make sure OP was clear about potential pitfalls

NAR

blossomhill wrote: »

Yes you missed thanking post #3 which I am sure you would have done if your real intent was to make sure OP was clear about potential pitfalls

Just a pity some people can't be honest with others and will try and lie their way out of anything they have done wrong!

DVardysShadow

Mojisola wrote: »

Unfortunately, there is always a residual beneficiary and if the timeshare is refused by another beneficiary, it will be inherited by that person.

:eek: This I do not quite believe. If the timeshare is actually a liability and no one wants it, then no one has to have it. It is a similar situation to debts - debts would not be inherited.

But it will probably cause added complications. YesWillMan makes the point that a refused inheritance falls into intestacy. Worse than that, if a timeshare is a liability, like debts, I would reckon it must be settled using value from the rest of the estate, before distributing anything to anyone. Otherwise the Executor could end up standing the loss.

Mojisola

DVardysShadow wrote: »

:eek: This I do not quite believe. If the timeshare is actually a liability and no one wants it, then no one has to have it. It is a similar situation to debts - debts would not be inherited.

You would think so, wouldn't you? I've read several articles recently that suggests that's not the case with timeshares. Many have a nasty clause in the small print which means that the timeshare is owned in perpetuity and the costs get handed down from generation to generation.

DVardysShadow

Mojisola wrote: »

You would think so, wouldn't you? I've read several articles recently that suggests that's not the case with timeshares. Many have a nasty clause in the small print which means that the timeshare is owned in perpetuity and the costs get handed down from generation to generation.

The nasty clause is only binding on the purchaser and their estate and on anyone receiving the timeshare as an inheritance. No one can sign a contract and bind someone else, so the option will always be there to reject the inheritance. That will be enough, I believe, to scupper any distribution of assets.

It sort of looks like the timeshare will get passed down the pecking order to the unlucky person who gets nothing else. But if that person has the gump to refuse it, who can force them to take it? Overall, it should go to the recipient who gets the lion's share - provided that the rest of the inheritance is adequate compensation for taking the poisoned chalice.

I would suspect that the articles are focussing on the adverse effects of inheriting a timeshare and don't really consider the option of refusing

Mojisola

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It sort of looks like the timeshare will get passed down the pecking order to the unlucky person who gets nothing else. But if that person has the gump to refuse it, who can force them to take it? Overall, it should go to the recipient who gets the lion's share - provided that the rest of the inheritance is adequate compensation for taking the poisoned chalice.

I would suspect that the articles are focussing on the adverse effects of inheriting a timeshare and don't really consider the option of refusing

I hope that's right. This is the kind of article I've read -

https://www.iwc-ltd.co.uk/article-the-dangers-of-in-perpetuity.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14819567

It seems to be the executors who get stuck with the legal liability if the inheritance is refused.