who inherits now ?

drumbasher4

P.S. to my last post my Dads will written in 1976 just states the three of us as
beneficiaries and does not mention any other circumstances.
ie my sister pre deceasing him and my nephew wasn't born then .

I think this will confuse solicitors so we might seek more than one opinion
to see what the law has to say .
Will let you know the results .

Yorkshireman99

drumbasher4 wrote: »

P.S. to my last post my Dads will written in 1976 just states the three of us as
beneficiaries and does not mention any other circumstances.
ie my sister pre deceasing him and my nephew wasn't born then .

I think this will confuse solicitors so we might seek more than one opinion
to see what the law has to say .
Will let you know the results .

No reason any competent solicitor should be unable to help you. However you may not like what they say but that does not mean they are wrong. The circumstances are clearly not easy to deal with.

antrobus

drumbasher4 wrote: »

P.S. to my last post my Dads will written in 1976 just states the three of us as beneficiaries and does not mention any other circumstances. ie my sister pre deceasing him and my nephew wasn't born then .

I think this will confuse solicitors so we might seek more than one opinion
to see what the law has to say .
Will let you know the results .

Section 33(1) of the Wills Act 1837 applies. The nephew gets his mother's inheritance, unless a "contrary intention" is expressed in the will.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/33

That is, the will would have to contain some specific wording in order for s33(1) not to apply. And I doubt this will confuse any half-competent solicitor.:)

TBagpuss

OP, what is the specific wording of the will?
As antrobus says, becuase this is your dad's child and grandchild, there is a presumption that the share due to a child who predeceased their parent goes to that child's children (in equal shares if there is more than one) unless the will expressly sets out a different intention.

So the most likely interpretation is that you get 1/3, your surviving sibkling gets 1/3 and your nephew gets the remaining 1/3.

Your sister is then free to give part of her share to her own children if she wants.

If the wording of the will is such that your late sister's share does not go to her son then i would be open to you and your sister to do a deed of variation to give your nephew what would have been his mum's share. You sis ter could also take advice about whether there would be any tax or other advntages in the deed also providing for part of her share to go directly to her daughters, if she wanted to give them something, although unless the amounts invoklve are very large that may not be necessary.

ameliarate

I could be wrong here but I am pretty sure my father had to change his will so that if any of his children died before him their share was passed to their children because if it didn't specify that it would just go back into "the pot" and be distributed amongst his remaining children. I think the will has to specify that it should be passed onto the deceased child's children.

theoretica

ameliarate wrote: »

I could be wrong here but I am pretty sure my father had to change his will so that if any of his children died before him their share was passed to their children because if it didn't specify that it would just go back into "the pot" and be distributed amongst his remaining children. I think the will has to specify that it should be passed onto the deceased child's children.

How long ago was this? The law quoted saying it does go to children of children is dated 1982 so may have been different before that.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/IHTM12084.htm

drumbasher4

Hi everybody I see the debate goes on and thanks for your input it is very much
appreciated .
There seem to be a few different opinions out there so I will let you know what
three different solicitors have to say .
I find it strange that my Dad an intelligent man never felt the need to change
his will even when family circumstances changed.
I am now on my third will .

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

This cannot be done if any of the beneficiaries are aged under 18.

More accurately, it cannot be done if it reduces the share of any beneficiary under the age of 18

Yorkshireman99

drumbasher4 wrote: »

Hi everybody I see the debate goes on and thanks for your input it is very much
appreciated .
There seem to be a few different opinions out there so I will let you know what
three different solicitors have to say .
I find it strange that my Dad an intelligent man never felt the need to change
his will even when family circumstances changed.
I am now on my third will .

You really will be wasting your money to consult three different solicitors. Get a recomendation from a friend and choose that one. Prepare yourself to hear an opinion that you may not agree with. Ultimately the executor has to take responsibility and be impartial. The law is what matters not the executor's wishes.

drumbasher4

Thank you all for your input .
Our point is this ..... there seems to be confusion .
There is confusion on this forum too .
So you go to one solicitor and accept what they say .
You go to another solicitor and it's a different .
If you only check one out who is right?.... and we think we are about to prove this .
You go to court in the morning and get a £100 fine .
You go to court in the afternoon and you get 6 months and a £500 fine .
We think the law is the best deal you can get on the day.
How many thousand times a day do people take advice from their solicitor and
take the consequences.
If they went to the one next door it would have been different .
Nobody bothers to check and most people cannot afford to take it to the top and
get an opinion .