Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

Trotter65

Thank you everyone for your comments. We were beginning to think that we were the mean selfish ones but reading through your replies I can see that my husband is doing nothing wrong by retaining his 25%.

Brambling

just as a side comment if your DH gives your SIL something (which I agree with the others and I believe he shouldn't) would your BIL then expect something as he only has the one child and I'm assuming his child got 8% and your two 16% between them? I would be concerned that you would be setting a precedent

ameliarate

Having been in the position where family members are not happy with a will And having  given  them something  (quite a lot in terms of £s) to try and appease the situation, I can tell you it doesn’t work. The sort of people who get upset about such things will never be happy. 

JGB1955

Your husband HAS to carry out the terms of the Will - no buts, maybes, perhaps.

maman

I'm sure your MIL cared equally about her grandchildren regardless of their parents. She obviously wanted them treated equally and had the will drawn up to demonstrate that. While (perhaps) understandable that people have views about what's fair and what they 'deserve', that's really not relevant.

I think your DH should use the 'broken record' technique and just keep telling his sister that he's following the will to the letter. It may cause bad feeling but it doesn't sound like things were that brilliant anyway. ☹️

xylophone

My MIL has recently died. She had 3 children and 3 grandchildren.  She has split her will into 4 with each of her children being given 25% each and the remaining 25% is to be split between her 3 grandchildren.

She made a valid will clearly expressing her wishes.

The executor's duty is to  execute the will according to its provisions.

She has made reasonable provision for all three of her children.

In those circumstances, I can't see that any claim for further provision would be admitted.

https://www.hughjames.com/blog/can-claims-under-the-inheritance-provision-for-family-and-dependants-act-1975-be-brought-out-of-time#:~:text=Where an estate makes no,the Act”), allows that

getmore4less

I would push back and tell the SIL you are asking the wrong person to give up part of their share.
Stop bothering me its the grandkids that got it ask them to give up what they got.

Savvy_Sue

theoretica said:

As executor your husband follows the will.  If he thinks there will be a lot of grief over this he could get the estate to employ a solicitor. 

I would suggest trying to change the language of any discussion with the sister.  The will is valid - she is asking him for a present of 1/3 of whatever his inheritance comes to.

the bit I've bolded. If he's in any doubt about the validity of the will, then the estate could certainly pay for a one-off consultation, and even get a quote for a Deed of Variation - which would need to have the agreement of all those adversely affected. Without knowing how large the estate is, I don't know how much this would affect SIL's 'share', but I would not tell her she is asking for a present: I would adopt the broken record technique, and I would tell her how much it will cost HER if she makes it impossible for your DH to execute the will because she's being unreasonable. 

She's also welcome to get her own legal advice - but that would be at her own expense. The estate could pay for a solicitor to reply to any letters - because this isn't a dispute between siblings, it's a dispute between a beneficiary and the executor. 

Savvy_Sue

getmore4less said:

I would push back and tell the SIL you are asking the wrong person to give up part of their share.
Stop bothering me its the grandkids that got it ask them to give up what they got.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to speak to the grandchildren: I don't think that's fair, BUT they would need to give their consent to a Deed of Variation. 

Dox

MoneySeeker1 said:

naedanger said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is some logic on the one hand of treating grandchildren as "people in own right". On the other hand it is a very old-fashioned view to think siblings with fewer children count for less on the other hand.

I actually think what the op's mother-in-law has willed is the more modern approach. 

It is not a case of saying the siblings with fewer children count for less. They count equally. The op's husband is not going to get his children's share. They are adults. So the op's husband was willed the same share as his siblings.

I also think it is more forward thinking to recognise that as people are living much longer it is actually the second generation who are likely to get best use/need of money. Young adults are more likely to have greater need. In any event the second generation are only getting to share one quarter of the estate, so it is nothing too radically different from just sharing between the children.

Disagree - as the generations that are currently middle-aged to late middle-aged are the first generation where "marriage was expected - and then subsequent divorce is commonplace". Add all the other stuff impacting on various members of that generation and the chances are they've been left little (if anything) by their own grandparent generation and it puts a different slant on things.

A younger person will be much more likely usually to "blow the lot" and do something like taking off for a gap year round the World or the like - whereas a middle-aged person would be more likely to be an age where they "should" be financially straight but divorce/job loss/you name it meant that they weren't and they were at or getting an age where retirement was looming and they absolutely had to be "financially straight" or, for instance, retirement might land up getting postponed or a home-owner chucked into rented accommodation by divorce couldn't manage to get a home of their own again. Upsetting for someone at "should be financially straight/retirement looming or here" age to watch a younger person just "blowing" it (as many will - and it isn't the case they would all be financially prudent and think "Right - there's my deposit to buy my first house" for instance).

What does all this theorising count for? The will reflected the wishes of the person making it, so why the huge debate?