Will under dispute

D00gie72

Actually both Sols have asked us to provide details of all our financial situations. I think we are still at very early stages here - and so far all my husband has had to do was make a statement saying some of the comments made by his step brother were not true (those relating specifically to my husband) So far all the beneficiaries have decided to use the same sols to deal with this (seems crazy for us all to have separate sols and all the additional expense and paper work that would generate!
Bearing in mind the expense you have all mentioned I just hope he drop this before it does on too long.

securityguy

"Actually both Sols have asked us to provide details of all our financial situations."

I would give the information to my own solicitors, but take advice before sending the same, or any, information to the other party's solicitors. Aside from anything else, do you want the estranged relative knowing your finances? Unless there are very special provisions in place, he's entitled to anything that his solicitors get hold of.

Yorkshireman99

D00gie72 wrote: »

Actually both Sols have asked us to provide details of all our financial situations. I think we are still at very early stages here - and so far all my husband has had to do was make a statement saying some of the comments made by his step brother were not true (those relating specifically to my husband) So far all the beneficiaries have decided to use the same sols to deal with this (seems crazy for us all to have separate sols and all the additional expense and paper work that would generate!
Bearing in mind the expense you have all mentioned I just hope he drop this before it does on too long.

I really would urge you not to run up solicitor's bills until the outcome of Iliott is known. The suggestion that the case of Wright v Waters and Iliott are very similar is absurd. The main similarity is that they both involve disinheritance. Iliott is a fairly straightforward decision by the testator to disinherit her daughter from she had been estranged since the daughter eloped at the age of 17 whereas W v W is a much more complex story of widespread family dispute with lots of contradictions in the evidence. What I hope is clarified by the Supreme Court is just how much freedom testators have to dispose of their assets as they see fit. I don't know if it is just backside covering but my solicitor asked me to explain in some detail the reasons for the contents of my will even though I have no close relatives or potential financial dependents. Whilst I can understand the rules in some other jurisdictions such as Scotland that prevent testators from cutting out some dependents equally there is an argument that they should be free to decide. There must be lots of incidents where a profligate descendant profits when many people might think another family member was much more deserving.

Mojisola

D00gie72 wrote: »

Actually both Sols have asked us to provide details of all our financial situations.

Has your solicitor explained why he/she wants this information?

I can't see the relevance to your position as a beneficiary.

lisa110rry

What I would like to clarify please is the relationship between the disinherited step son and the person for whom he worked when young. You state he worked for his father, is this his biological father as opposed to the deceased step father? The answer to this I believe will make all the difference.

getmore4less

D00gie72 wrote: »

Actually both Sols have asked us to provide details of all our financial situations. I think we are still at very early stages here - and so far all my husband has had to do was make a statement saying some of the comments made by his step brother were not true (those relating specifically to my husband) So far all the beneficiaries have decided to use the same sols to deal with this (seems crazy for us all to have separate sols and all the additional expense and paper work that would generate!
Bearing in mind the expense you have all mentioned I just hope he drop this before it does on too long.

I would have though the executor(s) should be employing a solicitor not the beneficiaries.

D00gie72

lisa110rry wrote: »

What I would like to clarify please is the relationship between the disinherited step son and the person for whom he worked when young. You state he worked for his father, is this his biological father as opposed to the deceased step father? The answer to this I believe will make all the difference.

The disinherited is the actual Son of the person who has died. The deceased's 2nd wife is my husbands mother.
As for why we have been asked for financial details. I'm not entirely sure (which is why we haven't done so yet) I believe they are just fact gathering at the moment with the view that they can refute the disinherited claims (i.e. that we are all "loaded" and he is "broke").
My mother in law is executor and she has sought all the legal advice so far - we have agreed to use the same firm of sols in a bid to simplify things and minimise costs escalating!

mrschaucer

I really would urge you not to run up solicitor's bills until the outcome of Iliott is known.

I have to agree with yorkshireman99 - why would you run up hours of solicitor charges against the estate, having them collect, collate, inspect, consider, etc etc everybody's private financial affairs, when this Supreme Court judgment might make the whole thing redundant anyway. MIL needs to have a word with the solicitor to try and shut this down until the relevant case has been finally decided. Then the solicitors can act with certainty.

TBagpuss

D00gie72 wrote: »

The disinherited is the actual Son of the person who has died. The deceased's 2nd wife is my husbands mother.
As for why we have been asked for financial details. I'm not entirely sure (which is why we haven't done so yet) I believe they are just fact gathering at the moment with the view that they can refute the disinherited claims (i.e. that we are all "loaded" and he is "broke").
My mother in law is executor and she has sought all the legal advice so far - we have agreed to use the same firm of sols in a bid to simplify things and minimise costs escalating!

Normally, disputed will claim is between the executor on behalf of the estate, and the claimant. As a beneficiary, you wouldn't normally have,or need, your own legal representation. You might be *witnesses*, either as to your own "need" or as to your relationship with the deceased, or theirs with the person they disinherited, but normally would not be a party to the proceedings.

I agree that it would be sensible for the estate to limit how much work is done until the claimant's position is clearer, and *possibly* for the Ilott case to be determined.

I would also agree that you should clarify why you are being asked for financial information, and who the information will be shared with, before providing it.

And do double check that the solicitor is experienced in this type of case, as the last thing you want is someone who is dabbling!

Yorkshireman99

TBagpuss wrote: »

Normally, disputed will claim is between the executor on behalf of the estate, and the claimant. As a beneficiary, you wouldn't normally have,or need, your own legal representation. You might be *witnesses*, either as to your own "need" or as to your relationship with the deceased, or theirs with the person they disinherited, but normally would not be a party to the proceedings.

I agree that it would be sensible for the estate to limit how much work is done until the claimant's position is clearer, and *possibly* for the Ilott case to be determined.

I would also agree that you should clarify why you are being asked for financial information, and who the information will be shared with, before providing it.

And do double check that the solicitor is experienced in this type of case, as the last thing you want is someone who is dabbling!

Indeed. It is essential a contentious probate specialist is used. I would not expect the average High Street solicitor to take the job on.