Ignoring parts of a will

Yorkshireman99

lisa110rry wrote: »

Dinky Lass, you would be amazed how people can "turn" where a will is concerned. I am very lucky in that when my Mum died all the family were behind me (they were all bought gifts or given money - car, personal electronic items like videos and such - as a memento of Mum who died on the day her will was sent to her for signature). However, her "best friend" who had Power of Attorney over her assets in another country which amounted to tens of thousands was not so supportive. The morning after I told that person that Mum had passed away, she went to Mum's bank first thing and cleared all her accounts. Thankfully Mum was known to the Bank Manager who thought this odd and called me, transatlanticly, to ask if this was expected. Because of his fast action, I was able to get the money back - never had an answer as to whether the woman or the Bank refunded it.

As I said, Mum had an unsigned will on the day she died, but outside the will, Mum had asked me to give £10k to this woman and £5k to each of two other friends. I would not give the thief her £10k but could not morally keep it, so I split it to give to the other two friends along with their £5k. I telephoned and explained what had happened. One of the other two friends worked with the thief (it's a small town), so her reputation was finished. Justice was done.

Dinky, your thread got me thinking about something else and I've just checked with Land Registry that our home is owned as Tenants in Common as we wish, when one of us goes, to give 50% of the value of our home (or equity in it) to our only child. Our wills are set up that way.

Thank you.

You are on very dodgy ground since you had no legal authority to distribute the estate other than exactly as the probated will, or intestacy rules, required. It is very bad advice to anyone to do the same.

Clitheroekid

Readers should be aware that in this situation the surviving joint owner is not necessarily going to hang on to the house.

There are various people who are entitled to make a claim against the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The recent case of Heather Ilott is a vivid example.

If such a claim is made out, the Court has the power under section 9 of the Act to retrospectively sever the joint tenancy, and give up to half the value of the property to the claimant.

It wouldn't appear likely that the son would have a valid claim in this case, but it's never safe to assume that a property inherited by survivorship is safe from challenge.

FreeBear

Clitheroekid wrote: »

There are various people who are entitled to make a claim against the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The recent case of Heather Ilott is a vivid example.

The only thing that the Ilott case confirms is that an adult child is entitled to make a claim under the Inheritance Act. It does not set a precedent and that any claim will succeed - Take a look at Wright v Waters [2014] - A similar case where a disinherited daughter attempted to bring a claim, but failed at great expense.

In answer to the original question: If tenancy wasn't severed when the will was executed (drawn up) and ownership falls to the surviving partner by default, then the property doesn't form part of the estate. On that basis, the partner can do what she wants and there is little anyone else can do about it.
That is my opinion, although it will be worth her while to get expert legal advice if anyone starts a claim under the IA.

Yorkshireman99

Clitheroekid wrote: »

Readers should be aware that in this situation the surviving joint owner is not necessarily going to hang on to the house.

There are various people who are entitled to make a claim against the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The recent case of Heather Ilott is a vivid example.

If such a claim is made out, the Court has the power under section 9 of the Act to retrospectively sever the joint tenancy, and give up to half the value of the property to the claimant.

It wouldn't appear likely that the son would have a valid claim in this case, but it's never safe to assume that a property inherited by survivorship is safe from challenge.

The Ilott case was wholly exceptional and did not create a precedent. It is very unlikely that anyone has a claim in the OP's case.