Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

Gers

Robert_McGeddon said:

- As here, one or more person or group gets less than they fell entitled to.

Best words to describe the situation - someone feels entitled!  Same old same old....

Except in a very few circumstances no-one is entitled to an inheritance in E&W law.  Those who receive should feel grateful.

Trotter65

thepurplepixie said:

ameliarate said:

I would hate to think that I had gone to the trouble of making my wishes known via my will only for people to be arguing about it afterwards. Not a problem for me admittedly I have one child and she’ll get everything, but still. 

If someone writes a will then the people left behind should honour their wishes. 

Exactly, it was the MILs money and she had a right to leave it where she wanted.  I think with my children they have been housed, clothes, fed and educated throughout their childhoods.  They had help with uni and with weddings and gifts for babies and I don't think they have any right to assume that everything will be left to them let alone demand a specific share.  

*FWIW, I would prioritise my relationship with my sib over the money and offer her an amount equal to 8.33% from my share. I suspect that she may not accept it but may just wish to have her position recognised and be involved in the decision. She may wish to have the pleasure of 'gifting' some of 'her share' to the children.*  Why shouldn't the sibling prioritise her relationship with the OPs husband more than the money?  Is it all one way?  She got the same as her brother and that is all she needs to think of.

I wonder if you can put a clause in a will that if anyone moans, complains or demands extra they get nothing?

Wouldn’t that be a good idea! 

Arthog

That would be very similar to the Frank Sinatra clause. His Will was executed without delay or challenge

Would it work in this country?

thepurplepixie

Well I would have thought it would be straightforward but I'm quite surprised at some of the attitudes on here where people think they are entitled to an inheritance and that if someone isn't doing what they consider they should do then they should explain themselves before they die.  Bloody cheek.

Malthusian

Robert_McGeddon said:

How did this topic get so long and involved?

MSE did an "intheseunprecedentedtimes" on the two discussion forums. Notwithstanding MSE's plea not to open discussion threads in other forums, any thread that gives an opportunity to speak yore branes under the pretext of providing help with a financial issue gets seized upon ravenously until the mods spot it.

Malthusian

Arthog said:

That would be very similar to the Frank Sinatra clause. His Will was executed without delay or challenge

Would it work in this country?

Bear in mind that for a Frank Sinatra clause to work you have to leave your beneficiary more than a token sum in the first place. So if you want to disinherit someone completely (or almost completely) it's no use. All the following things have to be true:

a) you must love your beneficiary enough to want to leave them a sizeable amount

b) but not enough to leave them the amount they may think they're entitled to (e.g. in this discussion, the share of the estate that would be theirs under intestacy)

c) and think they're likely to challenge your distribution of the estate

If someone has a valid claim to a larger share under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act, a Frank Sinatra clause is worthless - you can't legally stop your beneficiaries asserting their rights in law.

Even if you leave the troublesome beneficiary reasonable provision, the I(PFD) Act may provide some insurance for them. Let's say I am childless and have one sibling. My parent splits their estate three ways, me, my sibling, and my siblings' children. They include a Frank Sinatra clause. I challenge the estate anyway and say I had a reasonable expectation of being left half.

My claim fails as the judge decides that a third is reasonable provision.

The Frank Sinatra clause kicks in and now the Will says I get zero.

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act kicks in and says that the Will now fails to make reasonable provision, and awards me my third of the estate back. So I lose nothing (except that I might well have to pay costs).

Naturally it's perfectly possible that a judge might decide that "reasonable provision" may be less than a third, so I do lose something after the Frank Sinatra clause has overridden the original distribution and the I(PFD) Act has overridden it in turn; but under the I(PFD) Act I can't be threatened with the prospect of losing everything.

I am not certain that it would work this way and cannot cite any precedents, but it seems a strong enough argument that an ornery beneficiary might well decide it's worth a go.

Frankly (lol) I think that as long as you write a sensible Will that doesn't create problems for your beneficiaries even if they're all reasonable, it's not worth worrying about. A beneficiary of a decent-sized estate could demand that all their siblings pay them £10,000 or they'll challenge the Will and probably cost everyone more than £10,000 even when they lose; there's every chance that the siblings would pay up. Nothing you can do to stop that whatsoever. You can't solve every problem for your beneficiaries from beyond the grave.

Malthusian

I suspect that the execution of Frank Sinatra's Will without challenge had more to do with the fact that a) his beneficiaries were all relatively reasonable people b) Frank Sinatra was stinking rich and all his beneficiaries were stinking rich (and some were very successful in their own right), than the clause named after him.

Very very few Wills get challenged.

thepurplepixie

I think I'd like to give mine away before I die but of course the problem is knowing when that will be.  I'd quite like to see my kids enjoying it.

BargainJunky

I have not read all of the comments but in my eyes the will is the will and should be followed accordingly.

elsien

thepurplepixie said:

I think I'd like to give mine away before I die but of course the problem is knowing when that will be.  I'd quite like to see my kids enjoying it.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/16/billionaire-89-says-hes-happy-to-be-broke-after-giving-entire-8bn-fortune-to-charity-13281560/#:~:text=Charles%20Feeney%20donated%20all%20of%20his%20%248billion%20fortune,giving%20away%20his%20entire%20%248billion%20fortune%20to%20charity.