Beneficiary queries

MichelleUK

Bronte2 wrote: »

Thanks. I'm aware of the recent court case which bares more than a resemblance to me. I am on state benefits as a carer to a a disabled daughter with Ms (wheelchair bound) as well as 2 other children. The inheritance makes a big difference to quality of life in my household. I wonder if I actually have grounds to contest? As fur the charities I'm unsure of her involvement with them in her early life but certainly the latter part she's had no connection what so ever.
They still get £300,000 any way but if I don't inherit they stand to get £550,000. That's a lot of money

The recent court case involved a mother and daughter. The father died whilst the mother was pregnant with the daughter and the mother inherited a signicant amount from the father/husband. The judge in the case wanted to reflect that the daughter would probably have inherited from the father, hence she was given a proportion that reflected the sum left by the father. The charity aspect was an added element that proved that the mother was acting in a vindictive manner, having no previous dealings with the chosen charities.

BobQ

Bronte2 wrote: »

I'm not offended BobQ. I'm just just trying to establish if i am legally entitled to inherit. Quite simply my mum was the sole beneficiary of the property but in dying is succeeded by 2 chidren.
The fact of weather someone does or doesn't visit their loved one has absolutely nothing to do with their right to inheret, as I'm sure you know. Be nice if it did though!

I'm already aware of how to obtain a copy of the will and have the address in Holborn in order to do this once probate is agreed. It would just be nice to get a broader perspective. Thank you for your comments.

Just to clarify, the point I was making is that some people leave money to relatives they never see (eg to treat two siblings exactly the same), but some exclude a close relative because of simple things like never seeing them or thinking they do not need the money.

Hopefully you will find more information in the Will. You probably know but you can check probate grants on line
https://www.gov.uk/search-will-probate

BobQ

Bronte2 wrote: »

From what I understand this wouldn't need to be 2 witnesses Jvic28 but I could be wrong. One witness will be the solicitor, don't know about the other witness though.

A lot will depend on where she signed it. If it was signed in the house the other witness was probably a friend or neighbour. If in the solicitors office it is usually a secretary etc.

FreeBear

MichelleUK wrote: »

The recent court case involved a mother and daughter. The father died whilst the mother was pregnant with the daughter and the mother inherited a signicant amount from the father/husband. The judge in the case wanted to reflect that the daughter would probably have inherited from the father, hence she was given a proportion that reflected the sum left by the father. The charity aspect was an added element that proved that the mother was acting in a vindictive manner, having no previous dealings with the chosen charities.

Please have a read of the ruling of DJ Million back in 2007 - I think you will find no comment was made about Ms Ilott inheriting anything from the father. It is also disingenuous of you to suggest that this case can be relied upon to gain an inheritance that never existed. If you were to look at Wright v Waters 2014, the Ilott v Mitson case was referred to, but the claim from a disinherited daughter was rejected.

Ilott v Mitson changes nothing - It is still very difficult and expensive to get a properly executed will overturned, so take expert advice from a qualified solicitor before embarking on any action.

For the OP, it may be worth investigating the validity of the last will and trying to get it overturned if there was anything fishy about the way it was drawn up & witnessed. BUT make sure you know what the earlier will stated as you could still end up with nothing and have wasted a sizeable chunk of money.

getmore4less

As I understand it per stirpes does not apply here.

As this was not a blood line from the deceased the default when mum dies is for the gift to lapse NOT go to her children.

The will would had to have explicitly included you per sterpes, if this had not been done at the first meeting it may be there was no change to the will during that visit.

MichelleUK

FreeBear wrote: »

It is also disingenuous of you to suggest that this case can be relied upon to gain an inheritance that never existed.

May I suggest that you read my post again?

At no point did I suggest that the new case could be relied upon to help the OP. I provided a very brief precis of what I had read in the media concerning the case. I did not offer an opinion as IANAL. In fact, I had hoped that the OP would see that the facts of her query and that of the recent case are very different indeed!

-taff

Unless you can show she wasn't in her right mind when she wrote the will, your chances of recieving anything are very very slim.

ANyone can leave their money or belongings to anyone or any any charity, it doesn't have to be passed to family.


WHo led you to believe the inheritance was coming to you?

elsien

Aside from your aunt being able to leave her money to whoever she pleases, you seem to be presuming the full value of the house is still there. If she's had years worth of nursing home fees to pay, there may not be huge amounts left anyway.

nom_de_plume

Bronte2 wrote: »

My great aunt bequeathed her house to my mum in her will some 8/10 years back in her will along with £300,000 in savings to 3different charities after all tags etc were paid on her death.

We then find out that the solicitor made an application to the court to sell the property as it was to much hassle renting it out etc to which this was granted and the money £210,000 sat in the solicitors high interest account until my great aunt dies.

If it was just the house left then technically the house no longer forms a part of the estate and that bequest would therefore fail.

However it could perhaps be argued that the solicitor, having drafted the will, had knowingly deprived the beneficiary of that bequest when he could have taken steps to safeguard it (assuming the solicitor is one and the same in both cases).

That aside, if the will included a provision for the death of a beneficiary the above is probably a moot point.

-taff

I've just re-read your post and you say the first will stipulated that part f her state go to charity.
The second one says all of it to charity.

This seems to show that she did have specific charities or a relationship with cetain charities.


Not that it makes an ounce of difference to the second will and it's contents or again, your chances....