Can you change a deed of variation

nom_de_plume

Now I see the clearer picture I suggest the following resolution is put on the table:

As things stand 2 brothers are £9,000 up on the 3 step children.

Presumably step father arranged the DoV, as the mad bad fella above suggested, to level the playing field based on the only figures he had to hand, those at the time of Mum's passing. Note here, he could presumably have written her 2 sons completely out of his will and left everything to his own children but he played completely fair and did the right thing by his wife.

I therefore assume his and Mum's wishes were that all 5 children eventually received an EQUAL share in their estate.

If we take the 2 lots of £9,000 and throw them back in the pot and divide them 5 ways equally, ALL 5 receive the same amount. 3 step children are up on their inheritance by some £3,700 and 2 brothers are down by £5,300 BUT EVERYONE gets the same.

Alternatively, go and give £20,000 to solicitors.

It's a no brainer in my book.

JillyOJolly

We have talked about almost the same suggestion ourselves. Putting a somewhat similar "contract" together before any money is given out that is signed by all parties between them and is notarised to make everyone "whole" once estates and trusts are settled. The idea here is not to have anyone feel they are ripped off. Certainly not from OH and his brother, but it is from their side, sadly. They want 26% of it all rather than the obvious picture of this equal share of both estates from both parents, which I believe was the intention from reading all the paperwork. I just hope reason prevails.

Thank you so much for the advice.

JOJ

nom_de_plume

Putting aside the complications of how the law would decide on the matter I think everyone needs to ask themselves 'what would Mum and Dad want us to do'? I think we all know the likely answer.
I'm guessing they stand to gain somewhere near a 6 figure sum apiece. Money that could have just as easily gone elsewhere. Infighting is no way to remember the passing of their respective parents.

John_Pierpoint

We can only judge on what we have been told, does the step brother who is desperate to get an extra chunk have a particular axe to grind ? Like "I nursed the old boy through his final 6 months of illness, repainted his house ............and now you trusterfarians are stepping in and claiming more than me? ...................

I am actually surprised that the nil rate band trust has ended up with a higher value than the estate of the second to die, seeing as its only asset was a loan note (with an interest coupon ?). Presumably the surviving partner has been consuming capital as well as income ?
I am always very wary of changing the results of a will (or intestacy) as it means the results of the actions of a dead person plus an act of God, suddenly becomes a controversial act of someone still living, so niggling resentments can fester.

However in this case it seems obvious that the next generation of 5 were intended to be treated equally and that could be achieved by all 5 of the beneficiaries sitting in a circle settling the situation and minuting the meeting there and then - preferably without their partners trying to get in on the act.

[Coincidently that trust does not sound very "discretionary"; are either of the two named beneficiaries (now?) parents of grandchildren?].

JillyOJolly

Sorry John, little confused. The step brother did not look after his father any more or less than anyone else family who lives miles apart from each other. Its been thrashed very well and understood in the earlier posts even though no real legal advice per se has come forward some brilliant advice as we see it has. It seems its all just a little paperwork and understandings gone awry over the years. The trust was set up to avoid tax when OH mother died. Step family thought they were getting some of it, seems they are not and were never meant to. They get the lions share of their fathers money, the trust set up to give the trust money to OH and his brother. Shows it all to level almost equal. Very clever of FIL if you ask me. the partners have no interest at all, I am but a poor innocent bystander who has to watch a torrid disgusting greedy affair go on under my nose and try and help decide my OH decide for what is morally right and seek the start of costly legal advice or leave and give up and sign over what they want and come out with ultimately nothing, even what his own mother intended him to have. whilst the greedy apparent goody two shoes, upstanding members of our communities, oh yes thats what they have you see, basically steal this money from under their noses while my OH and his brother keep their noses down and work work work and take nothing from their mother working and living.

What is it they say, the love of money is the root of all evil. Yup I would say that is definitely true.

JOJ

madbadrob

If you want legal advice you need to speak to a lawyer. These boards are opinion based on experience.

John's posts are clear to me although I do think he digresses off the original question. What he was asking was why the greedy brother is saying what he is and putting forward scenario's as to why. Reasonable questions if you was questioning why they would do this but not really relevant to your original point.

Having googled it would seem that a deed can only be changed if the changes have not seen those who are entitled to the assets have received the said assets. The change of the deed would also need all involved to agree to it and also those who were to benefit from it. So it looks like in this situation unless you can get the brothers to agree you have no chance

Rob