Solicitor not carrying out our instructions

neverdespairgirl

MargaretB wrote: »

I wonder if this solicitor would have the same patronising attitude were it the other way round, and it was the man who had inherited the money. He sounds to me like he doesn't think the little woman capable of handling her own finances.

Probably.

OH and I had to deal with similar questions and instructions when we bought our flat, as the deposit came mostly from an inheritance from OH's parents.

And OH and I are both barristers, so not easily seen as either weak or ignorant of the law.

However, understanding the solicitor's obligations, we didn't throw our toys out of the pram.

If I were the solicitor in this case, a number of things would ring alarm bells. They include the "I tried to make the appt for her...." and her being shy and wanting him to deal with it all.

The solicitor doesn't know them. I don't know them. But there are signs here that a solicitor should be careful about.

The OP would be well-advised to stop sulking.

ekkygirl

I think the solicitor is right in protecting her. I just have to think that if I left and big chunk of money in my will to my daughter I most definately would not want her to effectively give half of it away.

You should be insisting that the house in in her name if only her money is paying for it.

If her parents wanted to include you in the inheritance they would have done. As you are a couple and intend to stay together it would make no difference who owns the house. I will be the family home.

I actually know of a case similar to this when re girl died and the partner remarried then he died so all the original girls money went to the new wifes family. and there was nothing that could be be done as legally the new wife was entitled.

Tyler119

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Probably.

OH and I had to deal with similar questions and instructions when we bought our flat, as the deposit came mostly from an inheritance from OH's parents.

And OH and I are both barristers, so not easily seen as either weak or ignorant of the law.

However, understanding the solicitor's obligations, we didn't throw our toys out of the pram.

If I were the solicitor in this case, a number of things would ring alarm bells. They include the "I tried to make the appt for her...." and her being shy and wanting him to deal with it all.

The solicitor doesn't know them. I don't know them. But there are signs here that a solicitor should be careful about.

The OP would be well-advised to stop sulking.

Sulking..funny funny! It seems that everyone else is sulking. We have spoken to another solicitor, he advised, we explained what we wished and his view is that we are paying him for conveyancing....not legal advice on our entire life.

So problem sorted. He said the other man was out of order the way he was going about it as we had hired him to do a specific job, paid him from our joint account and the money for the house purchase is in our joint account.

InMyDreams

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

For example, what happens if she dies, you are left everything in the will, you re-marry and have 4 children. Is the inheritance from her to be split between your 5 children, or all go to her child?

I was thinking about this recently too, especially after that other thread with the couple where one was being gifted money for a house. We are in a similar-ish position. We have been married for 15 years and have three children. We are about to be gifted a not inconsiderable amount of money by my parents due to my mum inheriting from her mother. Enough to pay off our remaining mortgage.

If I was to die, I would envisage everything passing to my husband; all our assets and the responsibility of bringing up the children. I would hope that if he was to remarry and have more children, he would not feel any duty to give preferential treatment to his older three. I would be horrified if my parents (if still alive) would expect him to treat their grandchildren differently to any other children he might go on to have. If that would the case, I would not be able to accept their gift. A gift with strings like that is not truly a gift, and if being given 'early' to avoid IHT, then sorry, I would have no sympathy with the giver if the recipient did not spend/use/'protect' it how they wanted it spent/used/protected.

I would however want some assurance that if he then passed away before his new spouse, that our children would not then be overlooked. I trust him implicitly, but a future spouse? But equally I would want his interests similarly protected if he was to pass away and I was to remarry. (I guess I'm less likely to have more children though, biology being what it is ) The point being, once gifted to *us* (and 'me' or 'him' is the same as 'us' in our book) it shouldn't make any difference where the money came from.

The splitting up scenarios are much harder to plan for or even think about. Partly because it's much harder to accept that it could happen, whereas death is inevitable. But mainly because splitting up implies disagreement, distrust, acrimony... which would likely change how one feels assets should be dealt with.

Mojisola

InMyDreams wrote: »

But equally I would want his interests similarly protected if he was to pass away and I was to remarry. (I guess I'm less likely to have more children though, biology being what it is )

But you could marry someone who already has children so, if you died first without leaving an inheritance to your children, it could all go to the new husband and then his blood relations - children if he has them or more distant relations if he hasn't.

InMyDreams

Mojisola wrote: »

But you could marry someone who already has children so, if you died first without leaving an inheritance to your children, it could all go to the new husband and then his blood relations - children if he has them or more distant relations if he hasn't.

That's exactly what I meant by wanting his interests protected too, and why it works both ways. I probably didn't phrase it well... even though I would be less likely to bear more children (he'd have to die pretty quickly and I'd have to get over it and hook up with someone else pretty fast ) I would still want his interests protected for exactly the reasons you mention. There would need to be some safeguard put in place to look after our three present children as they would now have no blood links to any assets.

Mojisola

InMyDreams wrote: »

That's exactly what I meant by wanting his interests protected too, and why it works both ways. I probably didn't phrase it well... even though I would be less likely to bear more children (he'd have to die pretty quickly and I'd have to get over it and hook up with someone else pretty fast ) I would still want his interests protected for exactly the reasons you mention. There would need to be some safeguard put in place to look after our three present children as they would now have no blood links to any assets.

It can be difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the surviving spouse could be very upset at not being trusted to "do right" by the children in the future but you're really having to trust some unknown people. I know someone whose adult child destroyed a will so that the inheritance would come to her mother and not be split between her mother and step-siblings. So it's not just the one person that a widow/widower might marry who has to be trusted.

neverdespairgirl

These are all complicated issues - and there is no right or wrong answer. It's important these things are raised and discussed.

littlesparkles

If I was your partner's friend then I would be advising her to protect the money as the solicitor is advising her to. I have been with my partner for many years but you never never never know what is going to happen in the future.

If you think that you will always be together then what's the problem with your partner owning the house in her name alone? Then she could write a will leaving it to you and/or the children. This would make no difference to your lives if the two of you stay together. If you break up then her inheritance is protected.

I'm no legal expert at all so someone may correct me. But as an unmarried woman, like your partner, I do think it is sensible for her to follow the solicitor's advice.