inheritance provision for family and dependants act 1975 claim

[Deleted User]

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

That was my first thought too.

Maybe John was fathers "favourite" and thus inherited more one way or another (whether a lot more or the whole inheritance).

It isn't fair for a parent to penalise a "less favourite child" just because of their personal feelings - after all they were the one that chose/presumably chose to have them. Some parents do though..

Though, obviously, I can see that there is a possibility there that Peter nicked money in the first place (that reference to "spending the mothers inheritance") - so another possibility is that father saw your friend had dipped out and was putting things right.

We cant tell from here though.

Finally a reasonable response. Thank you.

Brynsam

Deleted_User wrote: »

Why should John mediate. His fathers request was that he left the money to him and that's it. This will was made 15 years ago. John is now living in a hot country enjoying his early retirement.

You're now changing the question - and giving your own version of an appropriate answer. I thought you wanted 'legal advice' only?

It's a common misunderstanding that because a will says something, the (apparent) wishes of the tester must prevail. 'John' may have no choice but to engage if the will has been challenged under the Inheritance Act, so foot stamping doesn't help anything.

[Deleted User]

Brynsam wrote: »

You're now changing the question - and giving your own version of an appropriate answer. I thought you wanted 'legal advice' only?

It's a common misunderstanding that because a will says something, the (apparent) wishes of the tester must prevail. 'John' may have no choice but to engage if the will has been challenged under the Inheritance Act, so foot stamping doesn't help anything.

Great, thank you for answering. So John has to engage with Peter's solicitor and cannot ignore. Correct?

Cheeky_Monkey

Maybe 'John' coerced his father into making him the sole beneficiary of his Will and has, thus far, got away with it.

By the way, make your mind up, it was either John or Peter who asked you to post (post #21). You can't change it half way through the thread.

Humdinger1

Deleted_User

Unless the deceased father was giving Peter a roof over his head or major subsidies, UK courts take a very dim view of adult independent children making claims. You can largely leave your money as you see fit. Fairness doesn't come into it. The Illot case wasn't representative; many lawyers think that what swung it there was the fact that the daughter was on benefits and that an opportunity to reduce those payments shouldn't be ignored. Did their father leave a letter explaining his decision as that can be helpful. Costs for contentious probate can come out of the estate so potentially Peter is reducing his own share if he was misguided enough to try it. Keep us posted and good luck Humdinger

[Deleted User]

getmore4less wrote: »

Clearly JOhn can wait for more details but since John has failed to make any sensible progress(years/years?) or take up the offer of mediation I suspect he(and you) will be incapable of defending(or maybe even understanding) any claim without help of a contagious probate solicitor.

The estate administration can proceed as per the will but the distribution should be delayed until this provision action is either dropped or resolved.

Seems no one took legal action over the miss administration of the mothers estate, look how that ended up.

Let me correct you. The probate has finished. Sensible progress has been made(as you put it)John is now wealthy and lives in a hot country.


There was no money left from the mothers will as criminal proceedings were taken as Peter stole/spent it all.

[Deleted User]

Humdinger1 wrote: »

Deleted_User

Unless the deceased father was giving Peter a roof over his head or major subsidies, UK courts take a very dim view of adult independent children making claims. You can largely leave your money as you see fit. Fairness doesn't come into it. The Illot case wasn't representative; many lawyers think that what swung it there was the fact that the daughter was on benefits and that an opportunity to reduce those payments shouldn't be ignored. Did their father leave a letter explaining his decision as that can be helpful. Costs for contentious probate can come out of the estate so potentially Peter is reducing his own share if he was misguided enough to try it. Keep us posted and good luck Humdinger

Thank you so much Humdinger. Finally a decent response!


Yes the father did explain in the will that Peter would be left nothing due to the fact that the money was spent/stolen from his ex wife/Mothers bank account.
Peter is a grown man and was never a dependant of their fathers.The probate has finished and John is the sole beneficiary.

[Deleted User]

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

Maybe 'John' coerced his father into making him the sole beneficiary of his Will and has, thus far, got away with it.

By the way, make your mind up, it was either John or Peter who asked you to post (post #21). You can't change it half way through the thread.

Why so abusive? So now you are accusing John of influencing the will?


I smell a hint of jealousy. I apologise if Peter and John were mixed up in the previous post.These are purely fictional names to keep anonymity..


Adios Amigos!!

getmore4less

There is no need for John to engage with Paul solicitor yet.

Probate is not complete as it is within 6months and and active claim is in progress.
(given the caveat it was unwise to think anything else)

[Deleted User]

getmore4less wrote: »

There is no need for John to engage with Paul solicitor yet.

Probate is not complete as it is within 6months and and active claim is in progress.
(given the caveat it was unwise to think anything else)

Thank you getmore4less. We are now getting somewhere.I appreciate the reply.