Legal rights of children in Scotland

itsanne

GSS20 said:

itsanne said:

GSS20 said:

Thanks itsanne for your reply I cannot seem to post comment when I press quote and reply but sorry I don’t understand the part “Presumably the two who would have inherited the house will end up with the half of your mother's estate that is not included in the legal rights”
Am I correct in thinking that the following scenario would be correct:-
As per will no legal rights claimed for example house money totals £100k savings total £21k (made up figures for ease) the 2 siblings would receive £53k each (half share house money 7th share savings).
As per legal rights claimed by other 5 siblings they would get 1/14th of £121k = £8642
The 2 siblings would get £38893 each as they would not exercise their legal rights calculated as the difference between the estate total less the legal rights of the other 5 siblings. This value would increase should any of the 5 not exercise legal rights.
i am trying to get this into my head to be able to execute the will when the time comes but I will be getting legal advise to ensure it is correct as per the will.

What I meant is pretty much what you have said.

However, something you might want to bear in mind is that if any of the five siblings exercises their legal rights, the ‘pot’ (ie the saved money, not the house money) for the remainder of the five decreases. If one sibling claims legal rights and no allowance is made to compensate the other four, they end up with a sixth of £12,358 instead of a seventh of £21,000 – £2059 instead of £3000. If two claim legal rights, the remaining three get just £743. It would seem fairer to give anyone not claiming legal rights the £3000 your mother intended and then split what was left between the two your mother meant to get the house money.

Sorry you have lost me with the figures. From what I can see you have taken £8642 which is 1/14th of the entire estate (house and money) and taken that off the £21k savings to get £12358 am I correct or is that a coincidence and if so why does the legal rights value only come off the savings value and not the whole estate. The will states after 2 siblings get the balance remaining of the house money the residue to such of my children (named all 7 siblings) equally among them. 

The £8642 is from the entire estate - that's what anyone claiming legal rights would get. Where the money originated is irrelevant - once the house was sold the money from it is included in the total used for working out legal rights.

Other than the two who were to get the house, those not claiming legal rights would be left with whatever was left from the savings after legal rights had been claimed. I've only done it that way because you appear to be trying to keep the house money for the two siblings who would have got the house. There would be nothing to stop you giving them the £3000 they would have got if no legal rights were claimed. ( I think that would be fairer, but it doesn't give the other two as much of the house money.)

Rather than post separately quoting your next post, yes it would be fairer to ask the rest to claim their legal rights, but that doesn't achieve what you want to do ie give the house money to the original siblings.

Sorry you've been left the problem of trying to sort it all out while bearing in mind both the legal requirements and what you know your mother wanted - probably the last thing you need!

GSS20

itsanne said:

GSS20 said:

itsanne said:

GSS20 said:

Thanks itsanne for your reply I cannot seem to post comment when I press quote and reply but sorry I don’t understand the part “Presumably the two who would have inherited the house will end up with the half of your mother's estate that is not included in the legal rights”
Am I correct in thinking that the following scenario would be correct:-
As per will no legal rights claimed for example house money totals £100k savings total £21k (made up figures for ease) the 2 siblings would receive £53k each (half share house money 7th share savings).
As per legal rights claimed by other 5 siblings they would get 1/14th of £121k = £8642
The 2 siblings would get £38893 each as they would not exercise their legal rights calculated as the difference between the estate total less the legal rights of the other 5 siblings. This value would increase should any of the 5 not exercise legal rights.
i am trying to get this into my head to be able to execute the will when the time comes but I will be getting legal advise to ensure it is correct as per the will.

What I meant is pretty much what you have said.

However, something you might want to bear in mind is that if any of the five siblings exercises their legal rights, the ‘pot’ (ie the saved money, not the house money) for the remainder of the five decreases. If one sibling claims legal rights and no allowance is made to compensate the other four, they end up with a sixth of £12,358 instead of a seventh of £21,000 – £2059 instead of £3000. If two claim legal rights, the remaining three get just £743. It would seem fairer to give anyone not claiming legal rights the £3000 your mother intended and then split what was left between the two your mother meant to get the house money.

Sorry you have lost me with the figures. From what I can see you have taken £8642 which is 1/14th of the entire estate (house and money) and taken that off the £21k savings to get £12358 am I correct or is that a coincidence and if so why does the legal rights value only come off the savings value and not the whole estate. The will states after 2 siblings get the balance remaining of the house money the residue to such of my children (named all 7 siblings) equally among them. 

The £8642 is from the entire estate - that's what anyone claiming legal rights would get. Where the money originated is irrelevant - once the house was sold the money from it is included in the total used for working out legal rights.

Other than the two who were to get the house, those not claiming legal rights would be left with whatever was left from the savings after legal rights had been claimed. I've only done it that way because you appear to be trying to keep the house money for the two siblings who would have got the house. There would be nothing to stop you giving them the £3000 they would have got if no legal rights were claimed. ( I think that would be fairer, but it doesn't give the other two as much of the house money.)

Rather than post separately quoting your next post, yes it would be fairer to ask the rest to claim their legal rights, but that doesn't achieve what you want to do ie give the house money to the original siblings.

Sorry you've been left the problem of trying to sort it all out while bearing in mind both the legal requirements and what you know your mother wanted - probably the last thing you need!

Thank you for your reply I see where you’re getting the figures from now. Should the scenario happen that only 2 take their legal rights but the rest don’t and they won’t renounce their legal rights but are given the savings pot money(which is what will most likely happen) who is liable if they do somewhere down the line exercise their legal rights after the estate has been apportioned out , the executors (having informed them of their legal rights) or the beneficiaries who received the main house pot?

unforeseen

I believe that renouncing legal rights is a one way trip. You can't renounce and keep the option to claim later

Keep_pedalling

As you can’t claim legal rights and what has been left to you in the will, their legal rights will expire once they take their inheritance.

GSS20

Keep_pedalling said:

As you can’t claim legal rights and what has been left to you in the will, their legal rights will expire once they take their inheritance.

That’s good to know, so where does the 20 year clause come in then? Is it only if they didn’t know they had rights or   the estate wasn’t settled. 

GSS20

unforeseen said:

I believe that renouncing legal rights is a one way trip. You can't renounce and keep the option to claim later

The problem I’m having is them not formally renouncing (which would be a very likely scenario if it meant one particular sibling from the 2 siblings (house money) being seriously annoyed with them) but from what keep-pedalling replied it seems that by taking the savings pot they would be choosing the legacy from the will.

itsanne

GSS20 said:

unforeseen said:

I believe that renouncing legal rights is a one way trip. You can't renounce and keep the option to claim later

The problem I’m having is them not formally renouncing (which would be a very likely scenario if it meant one particular sibling from the 2 siblings (house money) being seriously annoyed with them) but from what keep-pedalling replied it seems that by taking the savings pot they would be choosing the legacy from the will.

You haven't half been given a poisoned chalise as executor!

I'm not sure that accepting less than legal rights without actually renouncing them counts as choosing the inheritance over legal rights, so someone agreeing to accept less but refusing to renounce might be able to claim the rest later. To set your own mind at rest, I'd suggest any one of the following:

1 Do what solicitors do and have everyone sign to either claim or renounce their legal rights before giving them their inheritance. Then pass anyone who refuses to sign to a solicitor to sort out - warning them first that the solicitor's fee would come from their share as they have the option of receiving the money without requiring a solicitor's input.

2 Give everyone their legal rights and split what remains between the two who would have got the house.

3 Get a solicitor to distribute the whole estate. (The fee would come from the estate so everyone would get a bit less.)

Then have a stiff drink and forget about it all!

GSS20

itsanne said:

GSS20 said:

unforeseen said:

I believe that renouncing legal rights is a one way trip. You can't renounce and keep the option to claim later

The problem I’m having is them not formally renouncing (which would be a very likely scenario if it meant one particular sibling from the 2 siblings (house money) being seriously annoyed with them) but from what keep-pedalling replied it seems that by taking the savings pot they would be choosing the legacy from the will.

You haven't half been given a poisoned chalise as executor!

I'm not sure that accepting less than legal rights without actually renouncing them counts as choosing the inheritance over legal rights, so someone agreeing to accept less but refusing to renounce might be able to claim the rest later. To set your own mind at rest, I'd suggest any one of the following:

1 Do what solicitors do and have everyone sign to either claim or renounce their legal rights before giving them their inheritance. Then pass anyone who refuses to sign to a solicitor to sort out - warning them first that the solicitor's fee would come from their share as they have the option of receiving the money without requiring a solicitor's input.

2 Give everyone their legal rights and split what remains between the two who would have got the house.

3 Get a solicitor to distribute the whole estate. (The fee would come from the estate so everyone would get a bit less.)

Then have a stiff drink and forget about it all!

Thanks itsanne. I was thinking that option 2 would be the best option. I have spoken previously to the other executor who is one of the siblings to get the house money that this would probably be the outcome but we wouldn’t have any problem getting a solicitor involved if we had to and let the money be eaten up by legal fees and also the cost of confirmation.  Thanks to everyone for their help.