Mirror Wills and Probate - only one will taken to probate?

getmore4less

Grantyy wrote: »

Main extracts of Mums Will

The beneficiary means Partner

If Beneficiary survives me for 28 days I give my share and contents to my trustees on trust for sale.
My trustees shall allow the beneficiary to reside in the property as long as he may wish and shall not take any steps to obtain sale etc
If at any time the beneficiary ceases to reside at the property or gives written content to a sale or becomes permanently incapale of residing there or dies then the beneficiaries rights under this clause shall end and my trustees shall hold any property hekld under this clause UPON TRUST to be divided between that of my children GF & Sibling who are then living and if more than one in equal shares.
_ I give all my real and personal property whatsoever and wheresoever not specifically devised or bequeathed by earlier provisions of this will to my trustees to sell upon trust to sell call in and convert into ready money all such parts of it as may not consist of ready money with absolute power to postpone sale and:
-to pay the income from the residue (my residuary estate) to my partner during his lifetime
- after the death of my partner to divide my Residuary estate between those of my Children GF and Sibling who survive me for a period of 28 days and if more than one in equal shares.

The standard provisions of the society of trust and estate practitioners (1st edition) shall apply

Not withstanding that my partner is making a Will in similar terms to this Will he and I have agreed that this my Will and his said will are not mutual Wills and accordingly that each of us shall be free to revoke our respective Wills at anytime whether before before or after the death of the other and shall not be under any obligation or trust to dispose of any of our respective property in accordance with the terms of said Wills.

Are you sure you have copied this correctly?

That highlighted bit looks a bit odd as what it is saying is is if mum dies and then partner dies and then both kids dies(or already dead) within 28 days of mum something else happens......

is there another clause?
if not then I think the default residue intestate rules will apply.

Grantyy

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Thanks. I've only come across the situation with mirror wills where the residuary is shared (in some way) between the children of both partners, not just to "my children".

Maybe the correct term is not mirror Will? I have used this a few times with the solicitor and they have not corrected me?
Either way it is that they are identical in all but the children named within them and we have a copy of both.
Ty

getmore4less

They are mirror will but that(what you call them) is not relevant the contents is.

Manxman_in_exile

Grantyy wrote: »

Manxman
Mirror wills is the term I was given by my GF so I assumed the solicitor at the time told her that, whatever the correct term as I said the only difference between the two Wills is that one has the partners children named and one has my GF's Mums children named but only the former went through probate which if they are identical didn't make sense to me why one would and one would not, that may well be down to the fact that all other assets passed to the partner so the last surviving partner passes everything aside from the property to their side, it seems a bit wrong to say whoever dies first gets the least but if thats common and how it was done we have non issue there so long as what is carried out is correct. If my GF's Mums will simply stated the property is to be split then it would have been much easier to understand to me

The property was held in trust and my GF and the elder son who are both named as executors on the cover sheet of the recent probate are also named on the land registry of the house as proprieters.
I'll be back on later to read the other comments, just a little short on time atm, as ever thanks for the help.

Well, that sounds as if your GF has 50% share of the house, but isn't entitled to anything else(?) like the car.


FWIW it sounds "wrong" to me as well, but presumably that's how the two wills were drawn up and presumably solicitors advised mum and partner as to the effects of what they were doing. Unfortunately it's not a question of "right or wrong", it's what the wills say.


Pay attention to the questions asked by getmore4less and yorkshireman. They know more than I do.

indian_summer

Op states mums will executors were gf,partner and stepbrother.

Will wasnt proved.They decided instead to put house in 3 names gf,partner,stepbrother to protect girlfriends share.

Throughout this thread op stated girlfriend had 50% share but has since written there are 3 names on the land registry.So only has a third share?
Wont the partners share become part of his residual estate?

Assuming the house were owned as tenants in common.
Mums will states mums half should have been held in trust for gf and sibling a 50% share,but she really only has a third.

Thats the way I see it so far.
All very intriguing

getmore4less

indian_summer wrote: »

Op states mums will executors were gf,partner and stepbrother.

Will wasnt proved.They decided instead to put house in 3 names gf,partner,stepbrother to protect girlfriends share.

Throughout this thread op stated girlfriend had 50% share but has since written there are 3 names on the land registry.So only has a third share?
Wont the partners share become part of his residual estate?

Assuming the house were owned as tenants in common.
Mums will states mums half should have been held in trust for gf and sibling a 50% share,but she really only has a third.

Thats the way I see it so far.
All very intriguing

legal ownership has no relevance to the beneficial ownership.

from the reading of the will as provided the house was most likley held as TIC 50:50 with the mums share going into the IIP trust.

on the death of the partner that share in trust devolves to the children with the partners share going to his children.


THE KEY HERE is what happened to the residual estate IIP trust.

getmore4less

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Well, that sounds as if your GF has 50% share of the house, but isn't entitled to anything else(?) like the car.


FWIW it sounds "wrong" to me as well, but presumably that's how the two wills were drawn up and presumably solicitors advised mum and partner as to the effects of what they were doing. Unfortunately it's not a question of "right or wrong", it's what the wills say.


Pay attention to the questions asked by getmore4less and yorkshireman. They know more than I do.

That is not what the extract from the will says, if the car was an asset of the mums estate then that should be in the IIP trust of the residual estate.

Manxman_in_exile

And don't forget GF's sibling when talking about shares in the house!


Has mum's will been executed properly according to its terms?


Grantyy - back to the questions asked by getmore4less and yorkshireman. The issue of whether they are in fact mirror wills or not is beside the point. As they have advised you need to describe what has happened step by step in chronological order and not jump from one will to another.


What happened when mum died (and how did she and her partner share ownership of their house)?

Manxman_in_exile

getmore4less wrote: »

That is not what the extract from the will says, if the car was an asset of the mums estate then that should be in the IIP trust of the residual estate.

OK - but this sounds like a completely rubbishly drawn up will! Surely the point of a will is to avoid any intestacy provisions? (EDIT: Sorry - think I've misunderstood your reference to IIP?)


If the solicitors who originally drew up the wills advised(*) the executors of mum's will on her death, have they got it monumentally wrong, which might explain their reluctance to explain what happened and why? Not saying they did - just wondering how this situation has arisen.


(*) It's not clear to me if they were engaged to advise or not, or whether the executors (whoever they were) tried to sort it out themselves without guidance. I don't think I would have done!

getmore4less

The provisions in these will may not be what most people think of with mirror will but this appears to be a second relationship with previous issue(children)

these wills allow the partners to benefit from the assets while preserving them for the kids on each side.


depending on the size of the estate(s) there are also some potential IHT issues as qualifying IIP trusts become the assets of the second estate and as these people were not married there is potentially the loss of a nil rate band as it is not transferable.


(I have not read all the posts as it became clear very quickly it was a garbled mess and the key was what was in the wills starting with the mums)