mom unsure of one aspect of her will

TW1234

As your mother has some doubt about her understanding, then she should speak with her solicitor, and only use forums for learning generally about matters that she needs to clarify. The correct implementation of her thoughts is the reason she is paying legal fees and is oo important to rely on well meaning but possibly incomplete or invalid input.
From the information you have supplied, the will would leave the property entirely to whichever daughter survived her or in equal shares to both, should both still be alive at her death. However, following that situation, when subsequently one of the daughters themselves died, the share owned by that daughter would go to any beneficiary as in their own will ( or following intestacy rules) and not be given to, or remain under any control of the remaining sister.
The mother needs to consider exactly what she intends to achieve. ( eg as written, if only one daughter is alive when the mother dies, then that daughter would be certain of being able to live in the house ( for as long as they may wish or need) and would have the entire value of the house passed into their side of the family. If both are alive at the time, then neither would have a certainty of being able to live in the house inb the future.)

tightwadess

Sorted thanks

gettingtheresometime

tightwadess wrote: »

Mom wants it to go to both of them so they both own it but should one pass the other to inherited it 100% and yeah she did think about great grandchildren too

The naming of cats may be a difficult matter but getting the wording right of wills is even harder so I wouldn't worry!

Mum, before she wrote her will, thought about - in the event of my sister or me pre decreasing her - leaving something to the respective son in law but a simple question as to whose share it came out of put a stop to that idea lol,

getmore4less

tightwadess wrote: »

Mom wants it to go to both of them so they both own it but should one pass the other to inherited it 100% and yeah she did think about great grandchildren too

if that is just predecease then relatively simple but if that's what she want should they both survive and one die later then that requires a trust as joint tenants won't work.

The trust has to be worded very carefully if she wants that to happen and stop them agreeing to do something different.

Then you have the complication what happens if they don't want the house.

and the complication of them both predecease her.

tightwadess

Sorted thanks

Malthusian

getmore4less wrote: »

if that is just predecease then relatively simple but if that's what she want should they both survive and one die later then that requires a trust as joint tenants won't work.

The trust has to be worded very carefully if she wants that to happen and stop them agreeing to do something different.

And as soon as we start talking about trusts the much better option for all concerned is for her to forget about it and not try to direct her granddaughters' lives from beyond the grave. If both granddaughters are adults and capable of handling their own finances then there is no reason a trust should come into it.

As it is written in post #17 the granddaughters will inherit as tenants in common, so if grandmother dies, then granddaughter dies, 50% will be owned by Living Granddaughter and the other 50% will be distributed in accordance with Late Granddaughter's Will.

The grandmother could direct that the grandchildren should inherit as joint tenants, which would mean that in the above case, Living Granddaughter would get 100% of the property. Depending on the size of Late Granddaughter's estate Living Granddaughter might get an Inheritance Tax bill, and for this reason and others the granddaughters need to be involved in this conversation.

If she wants great-grandchildren to get their share of the house (or the proceeds thereof) as it trickles down the generations then the Will as it stands is probably sensible. If they inherit as joint tenants and one dies then Living Granddaughter now has all of the house and all of the control, and the great-grandchildren on Late Granddaughter's side won't see a penny if Living Granddaughter isn't feeling generous.

getmore4less

Malthusian wrote: »

And as soon as we start talking about trusts the much better option for all concerned is for her to forget about it and not try to direct her granddaughters' lives from beyond the grave. If both granddaughters are adults and capable of handling their own finances then there is no reason a trust should come into it.

As it is written in post #17 the granddaughters will inherit as tenants in common, so if grandmother dies, then granddaughter dies, 50% will be owned by Living Granddaughter and the other 50% will be distributed in accordance with Late Granddaughter's Will.

The grandmother could direct that the grandchildren should inherit as joint tenants, which would mean that in the above case, Living Granddaughter would get 100% of the property.
Depending on the size of Late Granddaughter's estate Living Granddaughter might get an Inheritance Tax bill, and for this reason and others the granddaughters need to be involved in this conversation.

If she wants great-grandchildren to get their share of the house (or the proceeds thereof) as it trickles down the generations then the Will as it stands is probably sensible. If they inherit as joint tenants and one dies then Living Granddaughter now has all of the house and all of the control, and the great-grandchildren on Late Granddaughter's side won't see a penny if Living Granddaughter isn't feeling generous.

The problem with that is the joint tenancy can be broken, the grandmother cannot force a joint tenancy.

If the grandmother wants the survivor to inherit when the other dies the only way is a trust and even that won't be fool proof unless done properly.

Also no tax on the grandchildren unless the estate can't pay the tax and the house is over the nil rate band.

if the 1/2 share is then worth more than the nil rate band and no other assets it could get a bit messier if one of the grandchildren then dies.

Malthusian

getmore4less wrote: »

The problem with that is the joint tenancy can be broken, the grandmother cannot force a joint tenancy.

Agreed, which is another reason to specify tenants in common (as the Will as quoted in post #17 does) - that's how the granddaughters will probably want it anyway and it saves them the job of severing the tenancy. I can't see why anyone involved would not want each branch of the family to get their share.

If the grandmother wants the survivor to inherit when the other dies the only way is a trust and even that won't be fool proof unless done properly.

The grandmother needs to accept that at that point she is dead and it's for each granddaughter to decide who inherits their assets. Leaving the house to a trust will be complicated, woefully tax-inefficient and will probably achieve nothing.

If she left it to a trust and I was the granddaughters, the first thing I would do would be to try and get the trustees to agree to sell the house (to one or both granddaughters or A.N. Other), then wind it up and distribute the cash to the beneficiaries. In order to get rid of the periodic charges to Inheritance Tax and 45% income tax and 28% capital gains tax. At which point the grandmother's misguided attempt at Egyptian-style immortality comes to an end at great and unnecessary expense.

tightwadess

Sorted thanks

Yorkshireman99

tightwadess wrote: »

Mom wants it to go to both of them so they both own it but should one pass the other to inherited it 100% and yeah she did think about great grandchildren too

Trying to cover every eventuality beyond the grave is fraught with uncertainty. IMHO the best solution is probably to leave it in trust to the youngest generation until they are 18.