Benificiaries have never been informed and not received money from estate

rcjcch

My father-in-law died in 2014 and I have recently discovered that my children (his grandchildren) were named as benificiaries in his will, sharing a 20% share between my three children and one other grandchild.  We were never informed that they were named in the will by the executors, which is why we have never questioned it before now, and they have never received any share of the estate.  I have applied for a copy of the will and probate instruction from the probate registry and this has arrived, confirming details as suspected.  I know that the house was sold in 2016 and that another member of the family has recieved a share of the estate.  We have never moved house and one of the named executors regularly writes to my children, so it cannot be claimed that we were not able to be traced.
How should I proceed and what can I do to try rectify this situation?

theoretica

Are the children under 18?  Their portion may be held in trust by the executors until they turn 18 - rather than making the parents the trustees.  If this might be the case it would be a reason for a simply query rather than an accusation.

rcjcch

One child is still under 18, but the others are 19 and 42.

Savvy_Sue

So the two youngest would have had to go into trust, possibly held until 25 but that can be challenged.

Wrong, but maybe they didn't want the eldest to inherit earlier than the younger two? 

Start with enquiry, it may be an honest mistake.

rcjcch

Maybe this could be correct, but wouldn't they still have needed to be notified?  

xylophone

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-may-aug-2018/how-long-after-a-person-dies-will-beneficiaries-be-notified/#:~:text=Beneficiaries%20of%20an%20Estate%20should,on%20in%20the%20Probate%20process.

Manxman_in_exile

Is that 42 a typo?  (Not being funny as my siblings are 12 and 15 years older than me, but a gap of 24 years between youngest and oldest is a lot).

And yes - I would have expected to have found out about the bequests at the time.  No legitimate reason not to do so.  As suggested I would simply make an innocent enquiry of the executor(s) as to when will they be in a position to pay the bequests.  If it's a share of the residual estate you may want to remind them that your children are also entitled to a copy of the estate accounts.

xylophone

but a gap of 24 years between youngest and oldest is a lot).

A relative of mine is 25 years older than her half brother.

Savvy_Sue

rcjcch said:

Maybe this could be correct, but wouldn't they still have needed to be notified?  

I am not sure - the eldest yes, but I am not sure you HAVE to tell child beneficiaries until they are due to receive payment. 

Just checking too, the will didn't say something about the money being held in trust until the youngest reached a certain age? I think that's potentially unenforceable but a possible explanation. And were all three children named? 

Malthusian

Just checking too, the will didn't say something about the money being held in trust until the youngest reached a certain age? I think that's potentially unenforceable but a possible explanation. And were all three children named? 

It's also very potentially enforceable. If the money was left to a discretionary trust and the trustees had full discretion over how much each beneficiary received and when, the beneficiaries would only be able to get the money without the approval of the trustees when the youngest turned 18. (Assuming all three were compos mentis.)

Even though there is no indication of a trust in the OP's post, it emphasises that a polite query to the executors over what happened to the legacy is the first step.

Also, the OP said there are four beneficiaries of this 20% share, but then only listed three ages.

Another potential explanation is that the entire estate went on costs, debts and pecuniary / specific legacies (e.g. "my house to X" "£50,000 to Y") and the residual estate was nil. In that case the four beneficiaries would get 20% of nil.

Manxman_in_exile

xylophone said:

but a gap of 24 years between youngest and oldest is a lot).

A relative of mine is 25 years older than her half brother.

Yes - I can understand that with half-siblings but it's a big gap for full blood.  Having said that, I worked with a male and a female colleague for about ten years before I realised that the bloke was the woman's younger (20 years younger) brother.  I only realised from their conversation when they gave me a lift home from a leaving do.  (Mind you... they did look alike... and they had the same surname before the sister got married...)