Survivorship clause

poppystar

My previous Will contained a survivorship 30 day clause, the current solicitor is not intending this. Before I talk to her I’d appreciate any thoughts on this. Is it necessary or not? What are the pros and cons? It’s just for the residual beneficiary that I thought it would be appropriate. Thanks.

Keep_pedalling

I think it is really down to your personal circumstances. There can be a potential issue with married couples with a very uneven split of assets. For instance if a couple have assets of £1M and 80% is owned solely by one of them, the survivorship clause could prevent the IHT exempt spousal inheritance taking place so IHT could go from nothing to a six figure sum. 

poppystar

Keep_pedalling said:

I think it is really down to your personal circumstances. There can be a potential issue with married couples with a very uneven split of assets. For instance if a couple have assets of £1M and 80% is owned solely by one of them, the survivorship clause could prevent the IHT exempt spousal inheritance taking place so IHT could go from nothing to a six figure sum. 

So is it predominantly an IHT issue? That wouldn’t be applicable since the residual beneficiary is not related to me. 

I guess I’m confused as the previous solicitor recommended and this one hasn’t put a survivorship clause in. I have included where I would wish the money to go should the residual beneficiary predecease me so that is covered anyway. Maybe then no need for it? I guess it would only be an issue if he was to be dying in hospital when I go, which obviously I hope not but I guess when preparing a Will you are looking at unlikely and unwanted scenarios!

Keep_pedalling

poppystar said:

Keep_pedalling said:

I think it is really down to your personal circumstances. There can be a potential issue with married couples with a very uneven split of assets. For instance if a couple have assets of £1M and 80% is owned solely by one of them, the survivorship clause could prevent the IHT exempt spousal inheritance taking place so IHT could go from nothing to a six figure sum. 

So is it predominantly an IHT issue? That wouldn’t be applicable since the residual beneficiary is not related to me. 

I guess I’m confused as the previous solicitor recommended and this one hasn’t put a survivorship clause in. I have included where I would wish the money to go should the residual beneficiary predecease me so that is covered anyway. Maybe then no need for it? I guess it would only be an issue if he was to be dying in hospital when I go, which obviously I hope not but I guess when preparing a Will you are looking at unlikely and unwanted scenarios!

It probably makes very little difference one way or the other. Without it should they die within 30 days of your death then it will go to whoever is their residuary beneficiary which is exactly the same situation as if they die 31 days after you. 

Langtang

poppystar said:

My previous Will contained a survivorship 30 day clause, the current solicitor is not intending this. Before I talk to her I’d appreciate any thoughts on this. Is it necessary or not? What are the pros and cons? It’s just for the residual beneficiary that I thought it would be appropriate. Thanks.

Both my in-laws passed in August last year, 4 days apart. There were 30 day clauses in their wills (Scotland)

It became a bit of a nightmare (for the solicitor) as rather than everything passing to the remaining spouse (in this case, it would only have been for 4 days) both estates had to be dealt with separately.

One incurred IHT (c80k), the other didn't. I'm fairly sure that had it passed from one to the other that there wouldn't have been any IHT. 

We decided to ditch the 30 day clause last week when we made new wills. 

Something to think about. 

Our solicitor did a fantastic job.