Will under dispute

Yorkshireman99

troubleinparadise wrote: »

As has already been said, take legal advice.

The claimant's solicitors will have taken his story at face value, and will now be gathering information to support the potential claim.

So equally your husband and his siblings should take advice on whether or how to respond to the requests for information. The responses may show the claimant's solicitors that his case is not as clear cut as he has made out, and that might potentially stop any further action.

Surely any case of this nature is likely to be put on hold until the Ilott judgement is known.

Malthusian

DigForVictory wrote: »

Support your husband & keep him well away from Bleak House (Dickens at his most acerbic on the delays of the legal process) unless you are both costume drama fans.

If I knew someone in this position I'd be buying them Bleak House for Christmas as a way of managing their expectations, plus I understand it's a very good book. But my relatives are generally thick-skinned and share a dry sense of humour so your lineage may vary.

Jenniefour

Would the fact that the person contesting is a step child make any difference to the possible validity of the claim?

troubleinparadise

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Surely any case of this nature is likely to be put on hold until the Ilott judgement is known.

Possibly given the similarities ie, contesting a will in which the testator has made a clear directive about their assets, but which a disinherited family member has questioned... but no doubt the family will be upset and worried, and should take advice to inform themselves about what they might be facing.

It is interesting also that in Doogie72's case the widow supports her late husband's will, given that presumably she is the birth mother of the disinherited step-son? Whether that has any sway is another matter of course!

marcelli

I suppose charities and relatives are different kettles of fish and the court in the case awaiting outcome must be trying to find a way to argue for the need of the relative rather than the need of the charities, in some way dependent on the relationship to the deceased and consequent (if it is) exclusion from the Will. In your case as well there will be a history as to why the claimant is excluded and once the solicitor acting for him becomes more aware of that history, then the solicitor's certainty will possibly/probably waver. Also, the fact of requesting other relatives' "need" for the inheritance will be in some way related to the argument the solicitor is wishing to put forward.
Can your husband and siblings not simply say that they feel it is not at this stage relevant to give details of earnings etc. and that the historical relationship (or however you wish to describe it) to the Deceased gave rise to the claimant's exclusion, and then give some detail as to why the Claimant is excluded? If your husband takes the matter to his own lawyer, then he will have to explain the situation anyway and then pay the lawyer to write such a letter, so he and his siblings might as well save that money and enlighten the Claimant's solicitor to such facts of the case that they feel are most relevant and expressing a wish to avoid further argument and pain to all concerned.

Yorkshireman99

marcelli wrote: »

I suppose charities and relatives are different kettles of fish and the court in the case awaiting outcome must be trying to find a way to argue for the need of the relative rather than the need of the charities, in some way dependent on the relationship to the deceased and consequent (if it is) exclusion from the Will. In your case as well there will be a history as to why the claimant is excluded and once the solicitor acting for him becomes more aware of that history, then the solicitor's certainty will possibly/probably waver. Also, the fact of requesting other relatives' "need" for the inheritance will be in some way related to the argument the solicitor is wishing to put forward.
Can your husband and siblings not simply say that they feel it is not at this stage relevant to give details of earnings etc. and that the historical relationship (or however you wish to describe it) to the Deceased gave rise to the claimant's exclusion, and then give some detail as to why the Claimant is excluded? If your husband takes the matter to his own lawyer, then he will have to explain the situation anyway and then pay the lawyer to write such a letter, so he and his siblings might as well save that money and enlighten the Claimant's solicitor to such facts of the case that they feel are most relevant and expressing a wish to avoid further argument and pain to all concerned.

The Ilott case judgement really will be defining moment as far as what testators can, or cannot, do in excluding relatives from their wills. Having heard most of the verbal presentations live the arguments are quite strong on both sides. The detailed judgement will be fascinating to read in due course.

FreeBear

Is that case still rumbling on..... I had hoped it had been settled for good.

For the benefit of the OP - Have a read of Wright v Waters http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3614.html - The Illot case is referenced in the summing up along with a couple of other prior cases. However, for Wright, she lost despite the beneficiaries being much better off in terms of income and health.

Before entering in to any negotiations, one key question needs to be asked - Does the prospective claimant have sufficient funds to pursue a case ?
He won't get legal aid, and if he can get indemnity insurance, the premium will be at least 50% of the projected costs of a high court claim. A minimum of £20K, but quite likely to be in the £50K-£100K bracket.

I was in a similar position of having to defend against a possible inheritance act claim last year - Bounced a few letters off the claimant's solicitor with the primary aim of exhausting his funds early on. The six month deadline came and went, and nothing more has been heard. Illot was mentioned, and I responded with the suggestion that the sols should read all the judgments along with quite a lengthy list of other rulings. No reply since.

Yorkshireman99

FreeBear wrote: »

Is that case still rumbling on..... I had hoped it had been settled for good.

For the benefit of the OP - Have a read of Wright v Waters http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3614.html - The Illot case is referenced in the summing up along with a couple of other prior cases. However, for Wright, she lost despite the beneficiaries being much better off in terms of income and health.

Before entering in to any negotiations, one key question needs to be asked - Does the prospective claimant have sufficient funds to pursue a case ?
He won't get legal aid, and if he can get indemnity insurance, the premium will be at least 50% of the projected costs of a high court claim. A minimum of £20K, but quite likely to be in the £50K-£100K bracket.

I was in a similar position of having to defend against a possible inheritance act claim last year - Bounced a few letters off the claimant's solicitor with the primary aim of exhausting his funds early on. The six month deadline came and went, and nothing more has been heard. Illot was mentioned, and I responded with the suggestion that the sols should read all the judgments along with quite a lengthy list of other rulings. No reply since.

The circumstances in Wright v Waters are very different indeed from Ilott and IMHO have little to do with it. Ilott, despite the huge volume of written evidence, is much simpler. The only reason Ilott is still, as you put it, "rumbling on" is because some charities have taken it to the Supreme Court at their expense because of the effect it might have on their future legacy income.

NordicNoir

FreeBear wrote: »

Is that case still rumbling on..... I had hoped it had been settled for good.

For the benefit of the OP - Have a read of Wright v Waters http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/3614.html - The Illot case is referenced in the summing up along with a couple of other prior cases. However, for Wright, she lost despite the beneficiaries being much better off in terms of income and health.

Before entering in to any negotiations, one key question needs to be asked - Does the prospective claimant have sufficient funds to pursue a case ?
He won't get legal aid, and if he can get indemnity insurance, the premium will be at least 50% of the projected costs of a high court claim. A minimum of £20K, but quite likely to be in the £50K-£100K bracket.

I was in a similar position of having to defend against a possible inheritance act claim last year - Bounced a few letters off the claimant's solicitor with the primary aim of exhausting his funds early on. The six month deadline came and went, and nothing more has been heard. Illot was mentioned, and I responded with the suggestion that the sols should read all the judgments along with quite a lengthy list of other rulings. No reply since.

That case is an interesting read!

I found this statement particularly sad: "Patricia Wright has the benefit of public funding. Her costs are said to be of the order of £67,000 inclusive of VAT, The executors' costs are more modest - £30,000. Whilst Patricia Wright's costs appear to be high for this type of litigation the fact remains that costs of £97,000 have been spent in respect of an estate worth £139,000."

I take it that legal aid is no longer available to contest wills and that the proliferation of "no win, no fee" legal firms would only take on a case that they felt had a really good chance of winning?

securityguy

"The sols dealing with the case have asked all of us to provide financial details of our own income and savings etc."

Do you mean solicitors employed by you or solicitors employed by the claimant? If they are employed by you, they are gathering information under privilege to give you best advice, and you should either go with what they want or find new solicitors: it's both unreasonable and foolish to expect your solicitors to represent your interests but second-guess their methods. On the other hand, a letter from the claimant's solicitor has no more legal force than a letter from your friend's six year old, and it is up to you (after, perhaps, talking to your own solicitors) as to what action you take.

In strict legal terms, the financial means of the beneficiaries is of no significance: there is no legal doctrine which says that poor putative beneficiaries somehow trump rich ones. For example, being well off pretty much prevents you from bringing an action for support out of an estate, but whether or not you as one beneficiary are of moderate or substantial means doesn't affect the validity of a case someone else brings for support. People who can make a case that they need support can argue that support should come from an estate, and the means of the other beneficiaries don't come into it.

However, civil courts can take all sorts of things into account, and a case where what is a small amount of money to affluent beneficiaries is being withheld from a putative claimant who is much poorer, and to whom it would make a significant difference, might be decided differently to a case where all the parties were at a financial par.

The Illot case however massively impacts these sorts of cases, and on the facts as presented (putting aside the rather odd claims about injuries) this sounds like a pretty straight re-run of Illot. As that's with the Supreme Court, it reads like a claimant emboldened by the Appeal Court judgement, who will either be further emboldened or pretty much estopped by the Supreme Court judgement when it arrives. Cool your jets, OP.