Challenging a will

Terry_Towelling

SevenOfNine wrote: »

Presume your house owned as Tenants in Common, in which case your portion is for you to leave to whomever you wish.

Are bank accounts already separate? Can see no reason for the LA to 'challenge' your will leaving all that's in your own a/c (& any investments of yours) to your children, as long as you've not opened a new individual a/c in your name & removed half (or more) from a joint one to your own. TBH not sure if they might start yelling "deprivation of assets" if you did.

If you & your wife genuinely kept everything separate, then change your will by all means, as you are entitled to do. If you've moved (or plan to move) money held jointly when she is not of sound enough mind to agree to it, that's a whole different ballgame.

I'll leave the lecturing & posturing to others, for sure you're likely to get more of it, & say I wish you well as clearly you have major health fears/issues, & are just trying to get your financial affairs in order for the benefit of your wife AND offspring.

Yes, house owned 50/50. Bank accounts not a problem. Thanks for not 'posturing'; I knew I'd get some - it's easy to be picky from the outside. They just need to be careful not to ride their high horses straight out of the window of their ivory towers!

My wife went through a very aggressive phase for a couple of years and I've already resisted attempts by the mental health professionals to tick their boxes and to have her taken away, so I will not tolerate anyone implying that I don't care or love her enough to do what's right. She's come through that phase now but we have other issues to deal with instead.

In fact, if the professionals had had their way, the state would have funded all of her care regardless of her wealth. If that had been my motive I could have done it years ago - but I will not let her down.

Terry_Towelling

Mojisola wrote: »

If she is counted as a self-funder then there will be no funding from the LA.

If she meets the qualifications for LA funding, then all her income will go towards repaying the LA apart from around £20 a week spending money - you don't get LA funding and keep your own money.

Also, residents funded by the council aren't allowed to pay top-up fees from their own money - the top-up has to come from a third party.

Sounds like more justification for diverting my inheritance so that a third party can top-up when I've died.

le_loup

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

It may not be 'OK' in your eyes for the tax-payer to fork out for other people. Do you have the same view of people who have children and expect the tax payer to pay for their day-care or for people to receive what used to be called 'family allowance' and tax credits. Surely, if you can't afford to have children you shouldn't expect others to subsidise their upbringing?

Oh dear. Now we come to the nub of the issue.
A great shame that your problems have caused you to think like that. Maybe you used to be more balanced when you were receiving free schooling and family allowance for your children. And maybe you used to think that NHS care and attendance allowance were good things provided by other tax payers.

Savvy_Sue

You'd probably get better answers to the simple question from one of the organisations supporting those with Alzheimers and their families, or Age UK. If anyone knows whether it's ever happened, they would ...

Mojisola

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

My most recent Will (2002) passes everything to my wife in the event I predecease her.

Her total worth would then be around £500K which would just about pay for 10 years care (probably wouldn't be needed that long though)

Now, I can change my Will to pass everything to the children

...does anyone know whether a Local Authority could challenge my Will on the basis that my actions in cutting my wife from my Will is an act of collusion designed to deliberately deprive her of assets she would have been legally entitled to and which could then have been used to paid for more of her care?

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Sounds like more justification for diverting my inheritance so that a third party can top-up when I've died.

If your wife would be left with £250k if you leave your assets to your children, I can’t see how the will could be challenged. If she were to be left penniless, things may be different.

As a self-funder, she will be able to put her income towards the care home bill so her capital will last longer.

Do any of the children have Power Of Attorney for your wife (and yourself) so that the decision making can stay in the family?

troubleinparadise

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

I didn't say it in my first post (it was already getting long enough) but her Pensions/Attendance Allowance together with contributions from the children from their new-found inheritance would be used to 'top up' the LA funding to make sure she could stay in our 'chosen' place.

That is relying on the children to voluntarily pay that top-up fee - you have no means of ensuring that other than their good nature. Which no doubt they have now, and you may have discussed that and received their agreement, but it cannot be enforced.

And no, the LA cannot challenge your Will.

Tom99

Mojisola wrote: »

Do any of the children have Power Of Attorney for your wife (and yourself) so that the decision making can stay in the family?

A very good point but too late if they don't already have POA.

Margot123

I would suggest a visit to a LOCAL solicitor who specialises in elder/vulnerable person care. There are some very knowledgeable (and caring) solicitors out there who will be able to advise the best course of action.

A few hundred spent now could save an awful lot of heartache for you and your wife, and family, in the future.

Terry_Towelling

Solicitor visit is on the way but 'tame' solicitor on hols for a while, hence why I tried here first.

Money diverted to children would have to be held in a trust of some sort to ensure it would be used as required.

Yes, one of the children has POA as well as me.

I was under the impression that 50% of pension income would be safeguarded against going towards care fees - but perhaps that only applies where a spouse (i.e. me) is still alive - now doubtful.

The next para was posted by le loup
"Oh dear. Now we come to the nub of the issue.
A great shame that your problems have caused you to think like that. Maybe you used to be more balanced when you were receiving free schooling and family allowance for your children. And maybe you used to think that NHS care and attendance allowance were good things provided by other tax payers."

Thank you, 'le loup'. Please don't read snippets in isolation. If you go back and read once again you will notice that I haven't said anything bad or unbalanced about benefits funded by the tax-payer. I was pointing out to 'seashore22' that their attitude to tax-payer-funded welfare was unbalanced. I was wondering where they would draw the line on means-tested benefit.

They demonstrated they had an issue with funding when private cash was available , so I responded asking whether they felt the same way about other benefits handed out to people. That sort of debate is endless - should rich people get free healthcare on the NHS? Should the NHS fund IVF for people who aren't ill but have not been able to conceive?

I think welfare benefits are a wonderful thing and, as a nation, we should be proud of what we have. When I gave up work just over 6 years ago to be a carer, we claimed Carers Allowance and Attendance Allowance (after a year of struggling and living off savings) and although they don't exactly make up for a lost income (CA £60+ per week) they do make a huge difference and they protect my NI contributions. Without those, things would have been much tougher but it looks like I'm not now going to make it as far as my state pension so the protected NI contributions will go to benefit someone else instead. I will await your apology, le loup.

There is also far more behind all this than I am revealing because (as we have now witnessed) the more information there is to read, the less there is that actually gets read - and some things should remain private.

Thanks to all.

Mojisola

Tom99 wrote: »

A very good point but too late if they don't already have POA.

If none of the children have POA for mother, then an application for deputyship could be started now.

Terry Towelling could appoint his own attorneys now in case he becomes incapable of making his own decisions in the future.