Invalid Will? Adopted children..

missbiggles1

winnie85 wrote: »

I wonder why a judge would not see it that way? As the point in adopting is to supply the full parental needs of a child that would otherwise not be provided for. Otherwise it could have been arranged by fostering. Isnt there any legal weight to the act of adopting??

Depending on the outcome of advice the next step would be acessing the funds with which to carry it into courts if necessary. Im not sure how much these things would cost and if she has the kind of funds needed.

The 2nd note I must make. My friend was found to have been forfeited from her natural birth mothers estate due to the removal of this ancestral link on adoption. ( Her birth mother later came in contact and made a breif relationship with my friend, but on her death it was made clear that intestacy rules could not apply as she was now adopted). Seems the law recognises the adoption in come cirumstances!??

I think you're getting sidetracked by the adoption issuie - the situation would be the same if she had been born into this family, she still wouldn't have the right to inherit anything as there's a will leaving it all to the father.

winnie85

The probate file she has received states that the estate is worth less than £285,000. However the price the family house sold for one year later was just under 1m! That was obviously a shared household with both parents, and both are name as joint owners on the title deeds. This was my 1st question..how it can be that there are assets clearly worth alot more than written on "estate worth" records on will??

RAS

winnie85 wrote: »

The other mystery question is this will is that the estate is worth much less that it should be going by the acheived price of the house sold a year or so after death of the mother. Any ideas what could be the reason for this?

You are making a very basic mistake here.

If the house was owned as a joint tenancy (which is usual) then when the mother died, the father became the sole tenant. The house would not be included in the estate at all.

Even if they had planned for care homes and severed the tenancy, only half (or whatever portion the mother owned) the value of the house would be included in the estate.

So in any case, one would expect the value of the estate to ignore the value of the house or only include a portion of the value.

Just seen the more recent post and this confirms that the house was probably owned as joint tenants and father became the sole tenant. You are creating a conspiracy where none exists.

iammumtoone

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Not strictly true.


As already said depends on the value of the estate.
https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will/y/england-and-wales/yes/yes/yes

but there is a will and unfortunately for her she is not named in it

POPPYOSCAR

winnie85 wrote: »

The probate file she has received states that the estate is worth less than £285,000. However the price the family house sold for one year later was just under 1m! That was obviously a shared household with both parents, and both are name as joint owners on the title deeds. This was my 1st question..how it can be that there are assets clearly worth alot more than written on "estate worth" records on will??

This has already been muted to you that the house may have been held as joint tenants and thereby passed direct to the husband.

POPPYOSCAR

iammumtoone wrote: »

but there is a will and unfortunately for her she is not named in it

Yes I know.


I was responding to a post that said without a will the husband would get everything.

winnie85

Okay some solid replies here starting to make light. Im really amazed by the law regarding children born/adopted after wills are made. Im thankfull to know this personally for my own knowledge as that is a weighty fact that more people need to be aware of! It doesnt make any sense at all but then alot of the british law in enamoured in non-sensical entries that can only have been inserted to protect a number of individuals and less belonging to a common / moral law.

I still think there is some loop being overlooked though. Something doesnt make sense in why she was removed from inheritance rights from her natural birth family because of the legal standing of this adoption? Doesnt add up.

Torry_Quine

winnie85 wrote: »

I still think there is some loop being overlooked though. Something doesnt make sense in why she was removed from inheritance rights from her natural birth family because of the legal standing of this adoption? Doesnt add up.

There is nothing overlooked. When a child is adopted they are now in law the child of the adoption and no longer have automatic inheritance rights from their birth parents. You cannot in law be a child of both birth and adoptive parents

bouicca21

She was removed from inheritance rights in the birth family because she was adopted. Do you not get this? Her legal I.e. Adoptive mother made no provision for her. Tough, morally suspect, legally perfectly ok. No one is obliged to leave their worldly wealth to their children. Most of us do, but we are entitled to leave it where we want - a charity, a friend, the local cats' home or whatever.

POPPYOSCAR

bouicca21 wrote: »

She was removed from inheritance rights in the birth family because she was adopted. Do you not get this? Her legal I.e. Adoptive mother made no provision for her. Tough, morally suspect, legally perfectly ok. No one is obliged to leave their worldly wealth to their children. Most of us do, but we are entitled to leave it where we want - a charity, a friend, the local cats' home or whatever.

I only wish that were true.


Their have been some cases where a will has been over-ridden by a judge.


So in theory this could be challenged , I do not think it would get anywhere but you never know these days.