Contesting a Will

troubleinparadise

haveiacase wrote: »

no , but based on beng mentally impaired....

And you say you've read a lot and yet still believe your adult children have a case?

troubleinparadise

Why not cut out the middle-man and just give your adult children some of the money you'll spend on legal advice/action?

Fire_Fox

haveiacase wrote: »

based on the fact they should have been accounted for , and my mil might not have been mentally capable of understanding what she was doing!

Wasn't she? How could you possibly prove that having only seen her once a year? What evidence can your children submit in court? A fully qualified unbiased professional solicitor says she was mentally capable, quite possibly they saw more of your MIL than you did.

Your MIL left her money to the two grandchildren who she raised, who loved her and cared for her until her dying day and not the ones who only bothered with an annual duty visit. Any normal person would call that the actions of a rational woman. That is what the court looks at with the oral statements and printed evidence, balance of probability.

Aren't your children too busy grieving to bother with destroying their relationship with their cousins by accusing them of elder abuse, spending thousands of legal action until the entire estate is gone. Oh yes: your children would pay their costs, the estate pays the legal costs of the beneficiaries.

Please now tell us you are trolling.

Savvy_Sue

haveiacase wrote: »

Is there anyway i can prove that the solicitor and the secretary (who witnessed and signed the will made in June last year) maybe didnt check throughly enough that my ex MIL was fully capable ?maybe there is a way of convincing a judge that the two who DO benefit maybe coerced her into handing everything to them ?

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't fully capable? The assumption will be that she was. The assumption will be that the solicitor was competent and did his job properly.

Do you have any evidence that the two grandchildren she had brought up as her own coerced her into handing everything to them? Did they ever prevent or discourage you from visiting?

haveiacase wrote: »

To be fair those two , do live in the same town and have done all of the looking after and her shopping , keeping her company etc but i just feel regardless of that my passed husbands kids should have benefited

Could you just read that again and explain WHY the two who cared for her should have to share 'equally' with the three adult grandchildren who CHOSE to visit once a year.

haveiacase wrote: »

its hard to let go

Of what? You say your ex husband left you comfortable when he died, your ex MIL's money was never yours to dispose of!

haveiacase wrote: »

Would the solicitor who arranged the will take me seriously if i called to complain i wonder , or would they get aggressive and warn me off ?

I hope any other solicitor would warn you off, even though they could make (a lot of) money by encouraging your children to proceed. As stated, you have no case here personally.

haveiacase wrote: »

no , but based on beng mentally impaired....

What evidence do you have of this?

Fire_Fox

I'd be embarrassed and appalled if my mother was photographing the will at a wake.

troubleinparadise

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I'd be embarrassed and appalled if my mother was photographing the will at a wake.

That's because you're a normal human being!

DannyBo

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I'd be embarrassed and appalled if my mother was photographing the will at a wake.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Back on topic; I understand the point you are trying to make OP and were your husband still alive at the time of ex Mil's passing, things probably would have gone the other way.

Mainly because he would, I suspect have maintained more regular contact. I think sometimes a grandmother has closer ties with her daughter's kids than with her son's - mainly because the Dil usually has her own Mother whom she calls upon for help/advice.

Having said all that; I think you should let it go. :beer:

Rev

I really hope you're a troll. I just lost my mother, she has 7 brothers and sisters, none of which got a jot in her will. What little there was was left to me.

Did they or their kids feel put out by this? No, they grieved for their lost relative and are trying to help me through it the most difficult time in my life.

Maybe she left your kids out the will because their mother was a money grabber? Maybe because she barely saw them? Or maybe because she just wanted to provide for the grandchildren who cared for her and looked after her.

If I were you I'd be more concerned with my own morals, or lack thereof apparently. And the fact some of my kids were angry their dead grandmother didn't leave them cash and not upset that they lost a grandparent.

I hope you waste a huge shed load of cash and money pursuing this, then get absolutely sod all besides the contempt you deserve.

mountainofdebt

Well I think the OP should challenge the will.

I'm sure that it will give the solicitor she contacts a good laugh at how a fool and their money are easily parted.

DannyBo

Rev wrote: »

I really hope you're a troll. I just lost my mother, she has 7 brothers and sisters, none of which got a jot in her will. What little there was was left to me.

Did they or their kids feel put out by this? No, they grieved for their lost relative and are trying to help me through it the most difficult time in my life.

Maybe she left your kids out the will because their mother was a money grabber? Maybe because she barely saw them? Or maybe because she just wanted to provide for the grandchildren who cared for her and looked after her.

If I were you I'd be more concerned with my own morals, or lack thereof apparently. And the fact some of my kids were angry their dead grandmother didn't leave them cash and not upset that they lost a grandparent.

I hope you waste a huge shed load of cash and money pursuing this, then get absolutely sod all besides the contempt you deserve.

The difference being; you were your Mother's child. Neither sibling nor niece/nephew.

In the OP's (alleged case) the 5 parties are equal (asides the fact that the Mil raised some of them)