Visitors to house

McKneff

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

My FIL's will for a starter that was professionally drawn up.

#


Ha ha, looks like your FIL was robbed...... Tell him to change his will writer.

gettingtheresometime

McKneff wrote: »

#


Ha ha, looks like your FIL was robbed...... Tell him to change his will writer.

well I'd need the services of Sally Morgan!

I have to agree with you though that it would be interesting to see if this stood up in a court of law, especially with all the news about Human Rights being banded about.

Having said that though I think it was a poorly worded will all round

g6jns_2

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

well I'd need the services of Sally Morgan!

I have to agree with you though that it would be interesting to see if this stood up in a court of law, especially with all the news about Human Rights being banded about.

Having said that though I think it was a poorly worded will all round

Thanks for that. Probably a case of the solicitor humouring his client knowing it would not be effective. I have an interest in genealogy and some clauses in my family's wills raise an eye brow by today's standards. One of my great-grandmothers lived in a house for sixty years after being widowed at 26. In her case the contents were included as well as the house so she owned very little when she died having lived on a generous annuity until she died. Her late husband's will had no caveats about remarriage as far as the house and contents were concerned.

TBagpuss

If the house is to be held on trust with the wife as beneficiary then the settlor (the person who owns the house) can stipulate what the terms of the trust are.

A provision that the trust would come to an end in the event of the widow remarrying or cohabiting is likely to be reasonable - such provisions are common in trusts set up on divorcem for instance. Equally a stipulation that the house was sold once any minor children left school might be reasonable provided that the terms of the will as a whole made reasonable provision for the wife (if they didn't, she could make an inheritance act claim)

Stipulations seeking to exclude specific individuals, or preventing visitors, would be likely to be unreasonable and unenforceable. Quite apart from anything else, it is probable that a wife/widow could in those circumstances apply under the inheritance act on the basis that the will failed to make reasonable provision for her.

depending who the final beneficiaries were the widow might also be able to agree with them a deed of variation.

elliebellie

Thanks for all the replies.
I totally understand not "leaving" the house wholly to his wife, as it is 2nd marriage and he has children from his 1st marriage (none from current one) but to try and say who the widow can have to the house as a visitor, for lunch, tea etc is utterly ridiculous and control freakery of the highest order!!

Errata

elliebellie wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies.
I totally understand not "leaving" the house wholly to his wife, as it is 2nd marriage and he has children from his 1st marriage (none from current one) but to try and say who the widow can have to the house as a visitor, for lunch, tea etc is utterly ridiculous and control freakery of the highest order!!

It would be classed as an unreasonable clause, and up to whoever believes it is reasonable to prove that in court - if they have deep pockets.

securityguy

Leaving aside whether such clauses would hold up in court (they wouldn't), who would have any locus to actually bring the action? Pretty much everything to do with wills is civil law, so someone has to bring an action to enforce any provisions. Why would the trustees bother? Why would the beneficiaries of the trust encourage the trustees to do it?

The husband sounds like an absolute !!!!!!, though, and if this is a real case, the wife should consult divorce lawyers anyway.

elliebellie

securityguy wrote: »

The husband sounds like an absolute !!!!!!, though, and if this is a real case, the wife should consult divorce lawyers anyway.

Yes and yes again, unfortunately it is real case and incredibly frustrating for all on the outside looking in IYKWIM :-(

g6jns_2

elliebellie wrote: »

Yes and yes again, unfortunately it is real case and incredibly frustrating for all on the outside looking in IYKWIM :-(

Ignore his comments he is just a troublemaker. The clause is not enforceble as it is unreasonable.

SailorSam

If someone moved in that he didn't like he could come back to haunt you.