Money Moral Dilemma: Should I cut my sons out of my will?

Malthusian

GrumpyDil wrote: »

Just one quick observation to all those saying that any will could be challenged. There are limited grounds on which this can be done such as the testator not being of sound mind and claiming under the dependants legislation.

Ah, but this doesn't change the fact that any Will could be challenged. You're talking about grounds on which the Will could be challenged successfully, which is a totally different conversation.

If the OP does this, they are making it more likely that the Will would be challenged by the disinherited sons. Even if the sons have absolutely zero chance of success, the daughter will still have the stress and legal expenses of defending the claim. This would be enough to make most people think twice about changing the Will in this way.

The only plus side is that it is well known that the best way to stop two people fighting is to give them a common enemy. In this case the OP is proposing to set up her daughter as the common enemy. Perhaps when both brothers challenge the Will it will end their feud and unite them in league against their sister, with a claim that the sister applied undue pressure on the mother to change the Will.

I'm going to break my vow not to bother with proposing a practical solution now. The OP can achieve what they want (giving more of their money to her daughter) without any possibility of challenge and future stress to her daughter. By making gifts to her daughter in their lifetime. Gifts by a living, compos mentis person are not open to challenge whatsoever. They're also tax-efficient.

If you want to specifically disinherit somone the best way of doing this is to leave a nominal gift as this shows you have not forgotten about them but have considered them and decided what you want to leave them.

Playing devil's advocate rather than the trained legal variety: this opens up a line of attack for the disinheritee which is "This legacy proves that my parent clearly didn't want to disinherit me entirely, and therefore it follows that my legacy should be increased to one that makes reasonable provision".

It is widely recognised that if someone gifts you £10,000 and then demands it back and claims it was a loan, the last thing you should do is say "I don't owe you a bean but here's £1,000 as a goodwill gesture to shut you up." They will argue in court that the partial repayment is acknowledgement that the money was a loan and not a gift. The same argument can be applied here, although there is every possibility that it wouldn't work.

Mojisola

Malthusian wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate rather than the trained legal variety: this opens up a line of attack for the disinheritee which is "This legacy proves that my parent clearly didn't want to disinherit me entirely, and therefore it follows that my legacy should be increased to one that makes reasonable provision".

I don't think it would work like that - leaving a token amount to someone and explaining your reasons for the size of their legacy in a letter kept with the will is common advice from solicitors.

My parents left their estate unequally divided between their children (for a very good reason which we all agreed with) but the solicitor still got them to write a letter which laid out their reasons quite clearly and would have made any claim very difficult to justify.

XRAT

It's your money, spend it as you wish, leave it to whom you wish.
Bear in mind that your daughter might be put in a difficult position if you leave it all to her. She might even choose to give a third each to her brothers for an easy life.

JayD

I agree with those who say this is a very personal decision and we are not familiar with the dynamics of your relationship with them both. Their relationship with each other is one thing but their relationship with you is another. It surely depends on that and how badly you think they treat YOU. Do you still maintain a reasonable relationship with each of them, despite times of angry exchanges they have with you?

You can only do what you feel most comfortable with.

So whatever the situation, if leaving your sons out of your will would upset you and be a constant niggle in your heart, then don't do so.

However, if you would feel more settled by cutting them out of your will, then do that.

It has to be whatever gives YOU most peace of mind.

JayD

XRAT wrote: »

It's your money, spend it as you wish, leave it to whom you wish.
Bear in mind that your daughter might be put in a difficult position if you leave it all to her. She might even choose to give a third each to her brothers for an easy life.

That would be the daughter's choice, made under the circumstances at the time. It should not affect this decision to either include or exclude the two sons as things stand between them and the parent at the moment.

unholyangel

jaguk wrote: »

Let me think.

If a stranger verbally abused you and generally treated you badly, you wouldn't give your money to them, but because family do it to you then it's different.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. The closer you are to them, the more likely you are to forgive them.

Or are you really trying to say that if a friend or family member does anything you don't like/says anything you're not happy to hear that the relationship between you (which might span your entire life) is over and that none of the nice things they've said/done mean anything?

Pollycat wrote: »

I assume the author of the MMD is OK with the way her daughter is behaving as they are considering leaving assets only to them so I doubt it's poor parenting techniques.
More likely to be poorly behaved blokes who can't keep their feud to themselves but instead have to involve their parent.

Parents don't always treat their children in the exact same way though so its entirely possible that poor parenting techniques are to blame.

It would be much easier to give an answer if we knew what was said and whether it was an isolated incident or a pattern of behaviour. But alas, MMD's seem to always be devoid of that information as if by design.

If the boys said something like "you always f****** take that a******* side" then cutting them out of the will is (imo) a severe overreaction and could indicate that the reason the boys have been locked in a feud for 10 years is because they have a parent who will hold grudges over any slight no matter how small.

If however they have wished their mother dead (or something equally as terrible) or have shown a pattern of that sort of behaviour towards her, then thats definitely something to be upset about.

crmism

It seems you have ample reason to disinherit your sons and, unless they can demonstrate that they have been financially dependent on you in some way, they have no right to press a claim on your estate when you die - so go ahead, and leave your estate to your daughter.

To avoid your sons challenging the terms of your will, you have two options. The first and better course is to leave a signed note alongside your will explaining your reasons for leaving them out of it - they can't argue with that, or your right to dispose of your property as you wish. The second is to give your reasons in the will itself - but bear in mind that, when the will is proved and probate is granted, it becomes public property so that anyone can see and read its contents.

Syntax753

Why don't you spend all the money whilst you're alive?
Then those who matter the most to you will no doubt get to spend quality time with you - whether it be travelling the world or what not.

And the rest can be ignored and make their own lives.

ska_lover

If you want to reinforce to your sons that you think very little of them - , and make them question your entire relationship with them, then go for it!

It is a very resentful way of making a point

You do not have to be 'caught up in the middle of it' - as it doesn't sound as if this feud is anything to do with you.. you could just cut dead the conversation if it turns in that direction, but it is a choice you are making - but I am not saying that means you need to be disrespected by your sons, but there are other ways to make your point

I detest the way pple use wills as a way of making a point and having the last dig - it is a really trashy way of elevating who is your favourite and causing long term resentment to all concerned and can really make pple question relationships they thought they had going back decades

culpepper

I believe they could legally contest the will if left out and receive a proportion anyway so it would only cause more problems between those that Were named as heirs and those that had been deliberately left out.