Very confusing situation regarding Dad's will.

comeandgo

My husband and my wills leave all to each other and when last survivor goes, what is left is split evenly between both sets of children, unless they stake their claim to 1/3 of cash and moveable items. This act of going against the will, means they have written themselves out of final share.

iammumtoone

Ring the solicitor the letter cam from, tell them you intend to claim and ask if you need to do anything after you have sent the from back.

They will understand living in England you will not be expected to know how skittish law works. Whist if you do need your own representation they will not be able to act for you, they will tell you the process of what happens next and you can make you decision based on that.

My guess is you just need to send the form back and wait, I would imagine you only need your own solicitor if you disagree with any of the information you have been provided with.

iammumtoone

comeandgo wrote: »

My husband and my wills leave all to each other and when last survivor goes, what is left is split evenly between both sets of children, unless they stake their claim to 1/3 of cash and moveable items. This act of going against the will, means they have written themselves out of final share.

Not necessary as whichever of you goes first, the survivor could then re-write their will leaving everything to just their own children. The deceased persons children would then get nothing when they could have taken a third.

(I am not implying this will happen with your family)

Also to some having less money but earlier is more beneficial.

dfgdfghxdfdzgv

Thanks for the replies/advice.

As has been suggested, I'll sign and return the letter, and include a cover letter explaining that while I wish to proceed, I have no idea what the next step is and enquire as to whether I need a solicitor. Obviously as they have suggested, they cannot offer legal advice to me personally, but as has also been explained in this thread, they have a duty to do the legally correct thing.

Now my head is also a little clearer on this, a few more questions.

1. His assets are split into those held in Scotland, and those held in England. By far the vast majority is held in England. Yet the total amount I'm entitled to includes all assets. But would the "English" assets not be covered under English law, meaning I have no entitlement to them? Why the split? He lived in Scotland, and by far the biggest amount is held by his life insurance policy, which was designed to cover his mortgage on his house, in Scotland, but it's under the English section.

That leads me onto...

2. The life insurance policy states, in brackets, "intended mortgage cover". Why is that included in assets? Surely that is wiped out to pay off the mortgage? I suppose the law must state that his wife now owns the house (which me and my brother have no entitlement to) but must either pay the mortgage herself, or sell up. Would make sense, but then what is the point of the policy?

3. Under liabilities, there is an overpayment of a pension from a company he used to work for (they obviously hadn't been told he'd died). But there's nothing about that pension in the assets. Do some pensions operate on a "we pay until you die" type basis? If not, where is the rest of that pension pot?

That's about all I can think of right now.

Yorkshireman99

English assets are covered by English law. If there is no English will then the English intestacy rules apply to those assets. Obviously this changes the whole situation. Assuming the is no English will then somebody will have to apply for letters of administration to deal with those assets.

As for the life assurance nobody can tell without seeing the policy what happens.

dfgdfghxdfdzgv

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

English assets are covered by English law. If there is no English will then the English intestacy rules apply to those assets. Obviously this changes the whole situation. Assuming the is no English will then somebody will have to apply for letters of administration to deal with those assets.

As for the life assurance nobody can tell without seeing the policy what happens.

That seems an odd way of working things - why would you need two wills?

It seems that the things under "England" are simply there because the company is based in England - his Natwest Bank account for example, and obviously Natwest are English.

Surely that doesn't require another will? That would be madness.

Also, surely it's reasonable to assume that unless his solicitor is an incompetent fool who shouldn't be practicing law, they'll have thought of that and would have advised me otherwise?

Yorkshireman99

dfgdfghxdfdzgv wrote: »

That seems an odd way of working things - why would you need two wills?

It seems that the things under "England" are simply there because the company is based in England - his Natwest Bank account for example, and obviously Natwest are English.

Surely that doesn't require another will? That would be madness.

Also, surely it's reasonable to assume that unless his solicitor is an incompetent fool who shouldn't be practicing law, they'll have thought of that and would have advised me otherwise?

There is no madness! It is a question of jurisdiction. The Scottish Coiurts have no jurisdiction outside Scotland and the English courts have none in Scotland. Hence a Scottish will cannot deal with property in England so the estate is intestate as far as assets in England are concerned. A similar situation exists, for example, if you have assets in France where you need a French will. You need to ask who is dealing with the English estate assets. It is quite possible for a Scottish lawyer to be qualified to practice in England as well as in Scotland. When you write to them ask them to clarify matters.

dfgdfghxdfdzgv

I would assume though, as I say, that his solicitors must be dealing with all of it. Otherwise surely they would have thought to mention that the vast majority of his assets were intestate, rather than sending me a document saying his estate has been calculated, and here's the value.

Again though, a solicitor told me today that it isn't possible to practice in Scotland if you're based in England, and vice-versa.

I'm not doubting you BTW, this is all very interesting information, but I'm just wondering (if I may ask) what your background is?

I will ask, as you suggest, about these issues when writing to them.

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

English assets are covered by English law. If there is no English will then the English intestacy rules apply to those assets. Obviously this changes the whole situation. Assuming the is no English will then somebody will have to apply for letters of administration to deal with those assets.
.

That is not correct, a Scottish will covers all assets held within the UK, as does an English/Welsh or NI will. Which law applies and where you apply for probate is based solely on where you are domiciled.

From the notes for filling in form C1 confirmation.

Before you can act as an Executor of any
estate in Scotland you normally need to obtain Confirmation. If the deceased was domiciled (see below) in Scotland, this enables you to administer the assets throughout the United Kingdom.
If, however, the deceased died domiciled in England or Wales or in Northern Ireland you will need to obtain probate there.

My wife was the residual beneficiary from her Scottish uncle's will and both English and Scottish assets were covered under the one will, as were foreign equities. A second will is only normally needed if you own overseas assets such as property.

Yorkshireman99

dfgdfghxdfdzgv wrote: »

I would assume though, as I say, that his solicitors must be dealing with all of it. Otherwise surely they would have thought to mention that the vast majority of his assets were intestate, rather than sending me a document saying his estate has been calculated, and here's the value.

Again though, a solicitor told me today that it isn't possible to practice in Scotland if you're based in England, and vice-versa.

I'm not doubting you BTW, this is all very interesting information, but I'm just wondering (if I may ask) what your background is?

I will ask, as you suggest, about these issues when writing to them.

I think what the solicitor means is that only someone with a Sottish legal qualification can practice in Scotland and vice versa. I have never heard of any ban on dual qualification. I am not legally qualified. I do, however, know that there are a number of lawyers practising in England who are also qualified to practice in France or Spain for example. Likewise those who practice in England and Scotland. I am happy to be proved wrong!