A few Questions, Advice Needed.

YoungBlueEyes

To be honest, I!!!8217;m not convinced they have had legal advice. 2 has previously told me that having sought legal advice she will remove me as co- executor as I am the main beneficiary and can!!!8217;t be both, and that she!!!8217;ll remove me for mishandling the estate for not carrying out my duties - all untrue. Nothing has happened re any of that.
It feels more like bullying/scare tactics to get more out of dad!!!8217;s will via me, which I disagree with on principle. I don!!!8217;t want to end up with a huge court bill though.

nom_de_plume

YoungBlueEyes wrote: »

To be honest, I!!!8217;m not convinced they have had legal advice. 2 has previously told me that having sought legal advice she will remove me as co- executor as I am the main beneficiary and can!!!8217;t be both, and that she!!!8217;ll remove me for mishandling the estate for not carrying out my duties - all untrue. Nothing has happened re any of that.
It feels more like bullying/scare tactics to get more out of dad!!!8217;s will via me, which I disagree with on principle. I don!!!8217;t want to end up with a huge court bill though.

Sounds like she's trying it on. There's no reason the main beneficiary can't be executor. My wife is named as both as are my children if my wife predeceases me. That will was drawn up by a solicitor.

gettingtheresometime

silvercar wrote: »

Which could be translated as:

they took legal advice
the legal advice said they don't stand a chance in law
try reaching an informal agreement before wasting any money.

Or


they took legal advice
the legal advice said they don't stand a chance in law
trying it on, hoping the threat of legal action will frighten 3&4 into giving them money they aren't entitled to.

TBagpuss

OP, the reason you haeven't found anything saying 4 siblings are wentitled to equal shares is becuase (in English Law, anyway) there is no such rule.

The starting point is that everyone has 'testamentary freedom' which means that your dad was free to leave his estate however he wanted. He could have chosen to leave 100% of it to a single child, had he wanted.


There are there rules which allow certain people to contest a will. That includes children, so your sisters have standing to issue a claim - that doesn't mean they would win.

As I understand it, in order for them to succeed, they would have to show one or more of the following:

- Your dad didn't have proper capacity when he made his will (unlikely, he had a solicitor and they would consider this at the time. Also, he left something to each of you, so it doesn't look as though he had (for example) forgotten how many children he had ad left some of them out)

- Your dad made the will as a result of undue influence or duress - i.e. that you or your sister made him favour you over over your siblings. Again, the fact that he made the will via a solicitor is strong evidence against this - the solicitor 's notes will show you were not in the room when your dad gave instructions and signed the will, and they should also be able to confirm that they were satisfied that your dad made his own decisions.

- that your dad failed to make reasonable provision for them. This is the ground which was used in the high profile Ilott case. However, it's normally pretty tough to prove as the court has to be satisfied that his decisions were unreasonable, and in this case, he did not disinherit your siblings, he simply chose to be more generous to you. Unless they were directly financially dependent on him at the time he died, they would struggle.

I would suggest that you check all this with the solicitor but assuming they don't say anything different, get them to write to you sisters to say that you will be following the terms of your dad's will and his wishes, and will not be agreeing any variation.

My understanding is that if they were to contest, the costs would come out of the estate in the first instance, but that a court could make costs orders against them if they lose.

Why did you need probate if the money from the bank account was already split? if there are any further assets in the estate perhaps reminding therm that you won't be able to distribute anything further until any potential claims against the estate are dealt with may focus their minds, as that would mean they would get nothing further as long as they seek to pursue any claim, as that money may be needed to fund the case for the estate.

Yorkshireman99

YoungBlueEyes wrote: »

To be honest, I!!!8217;m not convinced they have had legal advice. 2 has previously told me that having sought legal advice she will remove me as co- executor as I am the main beneficiary and can!!!8217;t be both, and that she!!!8217;ll remove me for mishandling the estate for not carrying out my duties - all untrue. Nothing has happened re any of that.
It feels more like bullying/scare tactics to get more out of dad!!!8217;s will via me, which I disagree with on principle. I don!!!8217;t want to end up with a huge court bill though.

As a last resort refer them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram that a quick Google will make them understand the meaning.

YoungBlueEyes

Yeah I think they are trying it on. There is no one main beneficiary, me + 4 received the same. 4 is giving them £15k each because she feels thats the morally right thing to do. Her choice but I dont agree.

TBagPuss Those are the kinds of things I read last night, and many websites all said the same. The Heather Ilott v charity case gave me pause for thought, but that didnt set a precedent - it was specifically for that one case.

Me +4 applied for probate because we were advised to by our solicitor. They only have 6 months from date it was granted to raise any issues, but without probate there is no end point.

The estate was fairly small, 1+2 took their and 4s share (4 offered), which leaves my £2k. Dad only had the house and bank account, there was no investments or insurance policies etc. Ive paid all the bills from dads money (it was a joint account in my name for years before he died), so it wont pay for a court case by a long chalk! Id have to stand that personally Im guessing?

Margot123

"The Heather Ilott v charity case gave me pause for thought, but that didnt set a precedent - it was specifically for that one case........."

You have to remember that civil cases do not set precedents. However a judge can, and usually does, take directions from previous cases.
Every case is judged on its own merits.

Yorkshireman99

The appeals do set a precedent. However th ilott case was holly exceptional and is unlikely to be relevant in this case.

mrschaucer

Come on, OP, think about it for one second.
They are threatening you by saying that they will challenge THE WILL? That is, the will which divides everything in the estate equally between you, and the will which specifically DOES NOT contain the house as it has been disposed of previously? What exactly in THE WILL do they propose to challenge?

What they seem to want to challenge is the fact that the deceased disposed of some of his estate before he died. How inconsiderate of him!

It's an unpleasant family row. I doubt if you will be advised that it could be turned into a valid "will challenge". What grounds do they have - simply not liking the will won't cut it. If they are out to show that you coerced your father into handing over the house to you, and therefore it SHOULD have been in the will, then they will probably find that extremely difficult, if not impossible. I'm assuming here that there was no coercion involved!

And even if they somehow managed to prove that you coerced him into handing over the house four years ago, then they still have to prove that the will, made with a solicitor in 2003, has something inherently wrong with it just because it specifies that daughters 3 and 4 were to inherit more than daughters 1 and 2.
I really don't think any solicitor would advise them that they have a good chance of proving all that.

YoungBlueEyes

In amongst all the websites I was reading was a link to a youtube video. A lawyer was discussing the Ilott case and explaining why it really only applied to her. I forget the details now (cos that was at silly o'clock in the morning) but I didn't think it applied to me.

MrsChaucer - their point was to contest and overturn the will on the grounds that 4 full daughters should get 4 equal shares. The rules of intestacy would then apply, and the house and bank account would be shared equally between us all. In the mean time all the house + contents + bank accounts (mine and estate) would be frozen til the court ruled, and it would be in their favour. And then because they'd won I'd get all the costs. But I can save myself the money and hassle of all that by paying them each £15k.
It's a wonder I stayed as calm as I did!
There was no coercion or fraud or theft or abuse of a vulnerable adult or any of the other nonsense I've been accused of. Dad's will is right and proper, so I doubt they'll get very far.
One thing my solicitor told me way back at the start was - expect to receive threatening letters from their solicitor. They're stubborn angry and wealthy so they'll have no trouble finding someone to take their money for a few letters. Nothing legal has dropped on my doormat yet though....