Complicated house/intestacy issue

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Both witnesses and the testator all have to be present at the same time as the signing is done. One date being different is prima facile evidence that was not the case that invalidates the will.

This is very odd, I have never seen a will that requires a witness to date their signature. The date should appear once above the signatures of both testator and the witnesses.

getmore4less

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

This is very odd, I have never seen a will that requires a witness to date their signature. The date should appear once above the signatures of both testator and the witnesses.

this is what the law says(note no dates required)

No will shall be valid unless—
(a)it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction; and

(b)it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will; and

(c)the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and

(d)each witness either—

(i)attests and signs the will; or

(ii)acknowledges his signature,

in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness),
but no form of attestation shall be necessary.”.

The key is C(ii) as long as that is done after the testator sign the will has still been executed properly.

The date could just be an error(was it pre printed) or throw some doubt they subsequently witnessed the testator sign and then acknowledge their own signature.

If they were not both there then the second witness should not have signed off the will.

If the witnesses are alive they can confirm if the will was executed properly or not.

Yorkshireman99

The need to date a will is axiomatic. Without a date will is very unlikely to be admitted to probate but the should first ask the Probate office. The other errors might be resolved with a court hearing but if it fails becaus eof the lack of date there is not need to incur the court costs.

getmore4less

Should have added,

The key here is if the will was executed properly and the bequest of the house is valid that resolves the main problem.

Finding out what would(if possible) be needed to get the will accepted seems to be a worthwhile exercise.
(problem those responsible think it does not matter)

The other errors may invalidate the parts of the will but that is less of an issue as it can be liquidated and distributed.

The important part is getting the house to the single beneficiary without deprivation by the one on benefits.

silvercar

maisie_cat wrote: »

If one of the siblings bought the mother's house should it even form part of her estate?

This needs to be investigated further. There is a difference between the beneficial interest and the registered owner, so it is possible to claim ownership for the person that bought it even if registered in the name of someone else.

Yorkshireman99

With respect this is a red herring. The bottom line is that post #4 still stands. An undated will is simply invalid as any solicitor will tell the two sides of the family.

NordicNoir

This seems to be getting very complicated. The following may work:

1. Will is invalid, therefore rules of intestacy apply.
2. The house is beneficially owned by the sibling who paid for it originally - all five siblings agree with this.*
3. All five siblings are entitled to a share of everything other than the house.
4. The house does not even appear in any estate documentation, as it was not beneficially owned by the mother, therefore no DOV needed.
5. Nothing for the benefit receiver to declare to the authorities.

* It needs to be investigated as to what proof is needed to get the beneficial interest of the daughter offically recognised now. Maybe she has proof of the original payment or an affidavit signed by the siblings. Maybe the Land Registry Rep that posts on here can state what would be required to change the registered owner.

getmore4less

If the Great Aunt was the only legal owner of the house there will be the need for a grant to change legal ownership.

Yorkshireman99

Where does this idea of the house being beneficially owned by one of the children come from?. Unless there is some proof that it was not gifted then of course you are correct. However given all the infighting it sounds like a recipe for wasting a lot of the estate in court fees.

Land_Registry

MichelleUK wrote: »

2. The house is beneficially owned by the sibling who paid for it originally - all five siblings agree with this.*

* It needs to be investigated as to what proof is needed to get the beneficial interest of the daughter offically recognised now. Maybe she has proof of the original payment or an affidavit signed by the siblings. Maybe the Land Registry Rep that posts on here can state what would be required to change the registered owner.

The land register deals with the legal ownership so if registered in her sole name you need probate (will) or letters of administration (no will) to appoint executor/administrator to deal with her estate.

The property forms part of the estate. The other issues re beneficial ownership and who has what shares relates, as far as the property is concerned, to the value of the property. So any issues around who gets what relates to the monies left after selling or to the sister buying their shares as appropriate.

The OP suggests the house is to go to the sister so no actual sale. So the two siblings who want to 'just sign it away' may be able to do so as that relates to their shares in the beneficial ownership it seems.

The only 'signing' to get it from late owner's name to sister is an Assent executed by the executor/administrator. The wider issues re shares in value etc are quite separate issues which we don't deal with