Wrong house named in will

theoretica

Ouch. I think you need legal advice from an expert.

I wonder if as 123 Any Street has been sold, and presumably you can find out how much for, that amount should be divided as the will instructs. Though that might be too far fetched!

old_fat_biker_bloke

theoretica wrote: »

Ouch. I think you need legal advice from an expert.

I wonder if as 123 Any Street has been sold, and presumably you can find out how much for, that amount should be divided as the will instructs. Though that might be too far fetched!

That's fascinating as it's one line of argument mum is considering - great minds and all that!!! She does have a lawyer but is mindful of fees...

By throwing this open I was hoping someone, somewhere may have known of an ancient precedent buried in a dusty, old law book somewhere.

nom_de_plume

getmore4less wrote: »

that looks flawed.

6 shares to mum then if she fails 3 each to the 2 kids but then talks about 2 shares.

The real issue is there is no residual so the rest of the money and assets would be as intestate after the £500 is paid out.

IS that really what was intended?

I interpret the 2 equal shares as being half each to the son and daughter.

The real question is how 'the nett proceeds' from the sale of the old address can be interpreted. They still exisist and doubtless a paper trail of their whereabout exisits maybe via the original conveyancing solicitor.

I don't know your mother's financial situation and it's none of my business but it may be worth considering all 3 parties geting round a table and working towards a compromse which will avoid any unnecessary conflict and expense. Maybe a 3 way share would be a fair goal to aim for?

Mojisola

nom_de_plume wrote: »

I don't know your mother's financial situation and it's none of my business but it may be worth considering all 3 parties geting round a table and working towards a compromse which will avoid any unnecessary conflict and expense. Maybe a 3 way share would be a fair goal to aim for?

His son and daughter don't really have any incentive to compromise. At the moment, they inherit half each.

BobQ

Aside ffrom the financial issues, the Will posted above seems to bequeath the contents (bar one item) to the OP's mother whatever house he had as his home, not the specified one that is then mentioned.

If they have disposed of the contents (as opposed to put them in a safe place) then they have broken the law. I presume contents would include any valuables like jewellery not in the cabinet.

Interesting wording, at first sight it appears to be crafted in a legal sort of way (but clearly the confusion it creates means not by a competent lawyer), compared to what one might expect in a DIY will.

Does she still have the DIY will form? I wonder if it gives as an example that "you might decide to divide your estate into 6 shares". If it did maybe he wrote about six shares for that reason?

As I read it he is saying that he leaves the net proceeds of selling the old house to his friend, but that ifs he is not alive that sum is divided equally between son and daughter or if only one survives him to the surviving child. But it does not say what happens to any funds in excess of the net proceeds of the house sale. This suggests that the deceased is only partially intestate and only if he is worth more now than the sale of the old house.

Definitely worth getting legal advice.

BobQ

Mojisola wrote: »

His son and daughter don't really have any incentive to compromise. At the moment, they inherit half each.

Assuming the Will was correctly signed and independently witnessed, they may have an incentive. The gross proceeds when sold would be a matter of public record. The net proceeds might be as well but could be estimated. Seems plausible that this sum might be a significant proportion of the estate.

dzug1

I'm really not convinced we are not grasping at straws here.


If the 'item' in question had been 'my motor car reg ABC 123D' or 'my Jacobean dresser' and it had been sold there would be no question that the bequest would fail rather than there being any replacement item for it or the proceeds going to the original beneficiary.


By all means seek legal advice - but beware of solicitors taking it on for the fees they will get whether you win or lose

getmore4less

dzug1 wrote: »

I'm really not convinced we are not grasping at straws here.


If the 'item' in question had been 'my motor car reg ABC 123D' or 'my Jacobean dresser' and it had been sold there would be no question that the bequest would fail rather than there being any replacement item for it or the proceeds going to the original beneficiary.


By all means seek legal advice - but beware of solicitors taking it on for the fees they will get whether you win or lose

It is not the house that is the bequest,

it is the proceeds from the sale of the house that may be significant enough I have no idea.

dzug1

getmore4less wrote: »

It is not the house that is the bequest,

it is the proceeds from the sale of the house that may be significant enough I have no idea.

Understood - but I still find it hard to believe that a will - intended to become active on death - can be applied retrospectively to something that happened some years ago (not clear how many - I haven't spotted it in the thread so far). What if he had spent those funds rather than putting them in a bank account. Particularly if such account bears no evidence of being a trust account. What if it had happened say 30 years ago when any possible 'evidence' is probably long since lost?


I'm sure you could get a lawyer to fight it for you. Bear in mind he'll get paid regardless - by your Mum if she loses, and by the estate if the estate loses - so he won't actually care too much either way about the strength of the case. If the estate thinks it has a strong case (and IMV they do) they will fight it and likely win




The context of the will is that the house is being sold on death, not at any other time

PippiShortsock

old_fat_biker_bloke wrote: »

Upon the sale of my home namely 123 Any Street (his OLD address) the net proceeds to be divided that is to say as to 6 equal shares unto my dear friend (my mum) absolutely, if she shall fail to survive me for a period of 28 days then unto my son xxx and daughter xxx the 6 shares to be divided equally.

As to 2 equal shares unto my son the said xxx absolutely or if he shall fail to survive me for a period of 28 days then unto my daughter the said xxx absolute.

As to 2 equal shares unto my daughter xxx absolutely or if she should fail to survive me for a period of 28 days then unto her son xxx absolutely."

I read this as the house proceeds are to be split into 10 shares - 6 to your mother, 2 to his daughter and 2 to his son. If your mother had predeceased him, her 6 shares were to be split between his daughter and son, who would also inherit one another's shares if either predeceased him.