No will left and died intestate...now family has imploded!

Flugelhorn

MoneySeeker1 said:

Flugelhorn said:

Brother probably is old school and thinks that the eldest son should inherit everything  as they always used to 

Thought that was just aristocratic families - ie the Lord of the Manor traditionally left the country estate etc to the eldest son and the youngest child was supposed to settle for something like becoming the local Vicar and the daughters were supposed to get married and have a husband provide for them.

May be wrong - but not aware of "ordinary" families doing this. I believe that about 80% of ordinary families leave a fair Will (ie divided equally between their children - which, in this case, would be one-third each, being 3 of them). There seems to be about 20% that leave an unfair Will (and about half of those 20% of those expecting to be beneficiaries don't know it's going to be an unfair Will and are surprised to discover that fact).

Nope - sounds to me like brother is someone that's distinctly lazy and a typically "short-sighted" person (ie doesn't plan very far - if at all - into the future) and didn't see this coming (ie fathers death). That, even though it would be clear to everyone that this would happen at some point soon and his cosy little sinecure come to an end and he needed to be making arrangements for his own accommodation/income/business address. Some people are just lazy and that seems to be what is happening in this case - ie with the brother.

Families should treat everyone fairly regardless 

MoneySeeker1

Absolutely agree - regardless of the family background.

There was at least some sort of logic behind what used to happen (think it still does?) in aristocratic families - ie of keeping together those large estates. Though, obviously I disagree with it - and it's particularly unfair on women.

In ordinary families - there would be no logical reason whatsoever behind it.

But who said most people think logically? - having just sat my way through a historical tv programme about events in this country of 500 years ago and the total illogicality of the opposition to translating the Bible into English and thought "Some things don't change much over the centuries - there is just as much illogical thinking going on in this century as there was then - it just expresses itself differently".

MobileSaver

MoneySeeker1 said:

Flugelhorn said:

Brother probably is old school and thinks that the eldest son should inherit everything  as they always used to 

May be wrong - but not aware of "ordinary" families doing this.

Wills like this are still very common with farming families here in mid-Wales, so yes definitely something "ordinary" folk are doing. It makes probate very interesting when you discover that the properties people have lived in all their married lives are actually owned by the eldest brother...

MoneySeeker1

MobileSaver said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Flugelhorn said:

Brother probably is old school and thinks that the eldest son should inherit everything  as they always used to 

May be wrong - but not aware of "ordinary" families doing this.

Wills like this are still very common with farming families here in mid-Wales, so yes definitely something "ordinary" folk are doing. It makes probate very interesting when you discover that the properties people have lived in all their married lives are actually owned by the eldest brother...

Crikey!

I can think of all sorts of possible complications to that one. Wide open to potential abuse. First thing coming to mind being emotional blackmail by the eldest to the effect of "You back me on this - even if you think I'm wrong - or you're homeless bro/sis". Agh! Explains a lot...

It would make "younger" siblings very conscious they would be taking risks "being their own people/with their own opinions" if that was opinions etc that the eldest disapproved of. It must be very "narrowing" in its effect on people (unless, by sheer coincidence, they are very similar people/opinions to the eldest).

Think I'd rather be at the "tender mercies" of an employer if it came to it - at least there'd probably be redundancy pay due if they decided they disagreed with you/there wasn't "a place" for you.

Grinning at the thought that my younger sibling would "not" be at all happy at having to espouse my values (which are totally polar opposite to his) in order to stay living in a house I owned - or does the "eldest" only count as the "eldest" if they are a man and women get disregarded for those purposes - and they actually mean the "eldest son", rather than the "eldest child (regardless of sex)"? 

naedanger

MoneySeeker1 said:

MobileSaver said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

Flugelhorn said:

Brother probably is old school and thinks that the eldest son should inherit everything  as they always used to 

May be wrong - but not aware of "ordinary" families doing this.

Wills like this are still very common with farming families here in mid-Wales, so yes definitely something "ordinary" folk are doing. It makes probate very interesting when you discover that the properties people have lived in all their married lives are actually owned by the eldest brother...

Crikey!

I can think of all sorts of possible complications to that one. Wide open to potential abuse. First thing coming to mind being emotional blackmail by the eldest to the effect of "You back me on this - even if you think I'm wrong - or you're homeless bro/sis". Agh! Explains a lot...

It would make "younger" siblings very conscious they would be taking risks "being their own people/with their own opinions" if that was opinions etc that the eldest disapproved of. It must be very "narrowing" in its effect on people (unless, by sheer coincidence, they are very similar people/opinions to the eldest).

Think I'd rather be at the "tender mercies" of an employer if it came to it - at least there'd probably be redundancy pay due if they decided they disagreed with you/there wasn't "a place" for you.

Grinning at the thought that my younger sibling would "not" be at all happy at having to espouse my values (which are totally polar opposite to his) in order to stay living in a house I owned - or does the "eldest" only count as the "eldest" if they are a man and women get disregarded for those purposes - and they actually mean the "eldest son", rather than the "eldest child (regardless of sex)"? 

I think it meant the younger children were expected to make their own way in life, and so would be more likely to be the ones to move to other areas to get work. The eldest would be most likely to feel obliged to support his parents as they got older, and some might not have relished the prospect of having to take over the farm and might have seen it as an obligation more than a benefit.

The problem with sharing the estate in the case of farms is that they would become too small over a few generations.

MoneySeeker1

It does look like there are still some families where a persons life is decided for them from birth - rather than them deciding their own lives for themselves (as most of us have expected since about the 1960's).! 

In these farmer families - does that apply regardless of sex of the siblings concerned? That being - it would be the eldest that stays on the farm (whether they were a man or a woman) and does that still happen nowadays? Would it be the youngest that would "make their own way" (again whether they were male or female) and does that still happen nowadays?

gwynlas

Moneyseeker these days I think it might be more  along the lines of who is most interested in taking on the farm or persuing an alternative career with the will being completed accordingly. There is no point the eldest going off to university to do astrophysics and persuing a career in same to be left  the farm where the younger sibling attended agricultural college and stayed at home

Mojisola

gwynlas said:

Moneyseeker these days I think it might be more  along the lines of who is most interested in taking on the farm or persuing an alternative career with the will being completed accordingly.

And much more likely that the farm is set up as a business and all the children are left an interest in it than for one to inherit it as a sole owner.

thepurplepixie

endaf said:

thepurplepixie said:

Be prepared for it all to go in legal fees if you can't persuade them to be reasonable.

unfortunately that is the way i see it going as i dont see either my sister or brother "giving in" as that is how they will see it but thats the way the cookie crumbles! In a way i wasnt expecting anything from the estate as i was semi estranged from my father but its certainly sad to see a legacy left for the children disappear in legal fees! 

Yes it is difficult, the family I know couldn't see it and were left with nothing.  Afterwards they were bitter, blamed each other, blamed themselves.  It had a terrible impact.

Manxman_in_exile

endaf - if you employed a solicitor to administer your father's intestacy and they have letters of administration, you should leave them* to sort this out with your brother.  If your brother has any legitimate "extra" claim (and none of us here have any idea whether he may or may not) I'd be surprised if your solicitor had not already identified that.

You should tell your brother that he (or his solicitor if he really has one) needs to be dealing with the administration solicitor - it's him (or her) that needs to get this right.

*Did you post earlier that you and your sister would seek advice from another solicitor?  You've already appointed one to deal with the intestacy - speak to them otherwise you and your sister will be instructing two different solicitors.