How can we Protect my Sister's Inheritance

willieormandsheroes

Thanks for that @Malthusian. Your reply suggests my sister could sign a Deed of Variation relinquishing her right to a part share of my mother's estate. How does the state check that she isn't then just getting the benefit from the estate she was due through another route,.For instance if she signs such a DoV her share of my mother's estate would be split between myself and my brother. We could buy a property that we rent out and direct the rental to a savings account we set up for my sister for her pension (to supplement her state pension when that comes around). Seems too easy a way around having her benefits stopped and protecting her inheritance from her (not at all nice) husband.

Oops - missed reply from @Mojisola

jackyann

I am so sorry to hear this.
But I do think that the only thing you can now do is to seek legal advice (ask through Womens Aid / CAB about a solicitor who understands about financial abuse)
Then, if your sister will not leave or sort out her own affairs, you simply have to leave her to it. I do know how deeply painful it can be to watch hard-earned and much needed money disappear in this way.

It seems that your sister leans on you & your brother, and maybe has an idea that whatever the problem, you can sort it out! It is just possible that when you tell her that you have exhausted all possibilities, that she has to take this money and make her own decisions about its use, she will have a sudden change of heart. It usually takes a 'trigger' of some sort - this may be it. I certainly hope so.

And please remember that you have done the best you can. Your mother could have changed her will, your sister can leave her husband. You are not responsible for those decisions.

willieormandsheroes

Thankyou @Jackyann. I myself have (just about) reached the acceptance that you suggest - my brother has not. He is the Executor of our mother's will, and cannot stand our brother-in-law. It is an anathema to him the thought of our B-i-L getting his hands on what our parents worked so very, very hard for - sacrificing so much to give us the very best start in life that they could - starts that they themselves could only have dreamed of. But there we are. If my sister currently seems to be happy with her husband (which happens when he is not making her life totally miserable) - then he too has to accept what will be.

You are right - our parents would only want us to do what we can - to do our best for our sister, She must live her own life - even though she struggled to do so when our mother was alive - depending upon her from time-to-time for 'refuge' and an escape from the mental pain and suffering being inflicted at home.

missprice

Some thoughts that may or may not help.

The executor can take time. Not an eon but a year is not thought outrageous.

Have you added up how much your sister will get from the estate and then worked out how long that may last her when she has to use it instead of benefits.

Plus the money cant just be spent capriciously or that too can be Deprivation of capital. There are rules although i don't know what exactly counts. Just maybe a month long cruise at many thousands could count as Deprivation of capital and then when they reapply for benefits it could be said they still have that money. So still no benefits.

If you can state that the inheritance may only last a few years just with paying the bills, then they will have to reapply for the benefits (and who knows how bad that will be in a few years) it may be the trigger she needs. Or not.

Another thought is thst once the money is gone, her husband may not want her anymore so the sooner she has it and the sooner it is spent the sooner she loses the dead weight. Maybe worth it to get him out of her life.

Skibunny40

Even if it's a very simple estate, it will be at least 6 months before any money is paid out ( something to do with waiting to see if there are any debtors needing payment)

securityguy

You would need to test it with a decision maker, but I can't immediately see why a deed of variation which converts a capital sum into an annuity would be deprivation of assets. That would sharply limit the access to the capital and extend the period over which the payments were made, such that if the future she were no longer on means tested benefits there would still be some money left. You would need advice from someone who knows the score in detail, however.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

You would need to test it with a decision maker, but I can't immediately see why a deed of variation which converts a capital sum into an annuity would be deprivation of assets. That would sharply limit the access to the capital and extend the period over which the payments were made, such that if the future she were no longer on means tested benefits there would still be some money left. You would need advice from someone who knows the score in detail, however.

A DOV simply means that the beneficiary declines to accept it. Then the executor has to distribute the estate as if there was no money owing to the renouncee. So the question of converting the amount into an annuity never happens.

securityguy

"A DOV simply means that the beneficiary declines to accept it. Then the executor has to distribute the estate as if there was no money owing to the renouncee"

Consider the common case where a parent uses a deed of variation to pass money straight through to their children upon the death of a grandparent. Yes, the parent renounces, but the executor redistributes to a new set of beneficiaries, some of whom (in this case the grandchildren) who were never named in the original will. A DoV can even be used to incorporate completely new unrelated beneficiaries: I've seen one used to add a large charitable donation. It's not as simple as redistributing "as if there were no money owing to the renouncee".

In another example I've seen, a residual beneficiary used a DoV to give a large sum to another relative who had not originally been named in the will, while remaining the residual beneficiary and retaining a substantial sum themselves.

A DoV is just that: variation. It creates a new will. The "renouncement" part is a side issue. And, of course, if someone renounces it doesn't require a DoV anyway: the renounced portion falls into the residue without further action (which would also be deprivation of assets).

What I was suggesting that a DoV be used to rewrite the will to "...and I leave my daughter X a sum of Y pounds for the duration of her life" (which the executors can fulfil by buying an annuity, setting up a trust, whatever). The daughter would have to agree to, as their legacy is being materially _altered_, but it would be a matter of some debate if trading £X for an annuity that has an NPV of £X is depriviation of assets. Such clauses are unusual, but legal, in wills.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

"A DOV simply means that the beneficiary declines to accept it. Then the executor has to distribute the estate as if there was no money owing to the renouncee"

Consider the common case where a parent uses a deed of variation to pass money straight through to their children upon the death of a grandparent. Yes, the parent renounces, but the executor redistributes to a new set of beneficiaries, some of whom (in this case the grandchildren) who were never named in the original will. A DoV can even be used to incorporate completely new unrelated beneficiaries: I've seen one used to add a large charitable donation. It's not as simple as redistributing "as if there were no money owing to the renouncee".

In another example I've seen, a residual beneficiary used a DoV to give a large sum to another relative who had not originally been named in the will, while remaining the residual beneficiary and retaining a substantial sum themselves.

A DoV is just that: variation. It creates a new will. The "renouncement" part is a side issue. And, of course, if someone renounces it doesn't require a DoV anyway: the renounced portion falls into the residue without further action (which would also be deprivation of assets).

What I was suggesting that a DoV be used to rewrite the will to "...and I leave my daughter X a sum of Y pounds for the duration of her life" (which the executors can fulfil by buying an annuity, setting up a trust, whatever). The daughter would have to agree to, as their legacy is being materially _altered_, but it would be a matter of some debate if trading £X for an annuity that has an NPV of £X is depriviation of assets. Such clauses are unusual, but legal, in wills.

With respect you have missed the crucial point. The renunciation itself is the deprivation of assets according to the DWP rules. So that what happens afterwards is an entirely separate issue. As correctly say all sorts of possibilities can be catered for.

securityguy

"The renunciation itself is the deprivation of assets according to the DWP rules."

They would struggle to sustain that argument if, for example, a DOV were used to renounce being left shares worth £X and replaced it with cash to a similar value. The mere renouncement can't be deprivation of assets if they are replaced with an asset of a similar value.