What kind of beneficiary am I?

Dub_and_Dubber

Hello all.

I'll TRY to make this as succinct as possible
... and using as dull language as possible!

I am well aware that I have the option of puttting the following directly to a lawyer, but it seemed worth posting on here in case I can then be much clearer with that lawyer should it come to that.

A close family friend of ours died, leaving everything to his wife, except the proceeds of the sale of a property, to be divided, with amounts specified, among a long list of beneficiaries, of whom I am a very minor one.

At the time of the will, the property was occupied by the person's elderly mother in law, who has since died.

The will uses a phrase like "on the sale of the property", and it seems (not surprisingly perhaps) that the wife is the only beneficiary of the overall will to interpret this as something that will happen either when she chooses, or when she dies.

In the mean time she continues to benefit from the renting out of the property, while living in her marital home, that was left/transferred to her in the will.

Those who stand to benefit from the sale of the property however, (again not surprisingly) interpret the will maker to have assumed the sale would take place once the mother in law had died.

I do not know who was named on the property deeds at the time of writing the will.

I also do not know whether there has been a transfer of title since then.

I appreciate that these two bits of information may be key to answering my questions, and I will be trying to ascertain these facts without upsetting anybody!

So, to my question/s:

1)
Is there a standard interpretation or assumption of meaning, when the moment at which a property is to be sold is not specified?
(In this case for example it does not say "on the death of my mother in law")

2)
Do the beneficiaries of this property sale have any say in when the property is sold.

3)
Do the beneficiaries have any rights with regard to the income from the property prior to its eventual sale?
(The "benefits" are specified amounts of money, not expressed as shares of the value when sold.)

Any pointers and advice would be very much appreciated!

Thank you for reading.

Stubod

..on the face of it, if that is all the will states then simplistically I would read it as just that..."on the sale of the property"....ie when the property is eventually sold.

I guess if the spouse chooses not to sell, (and shy should they?), then you may have a long wait?

GrumpyDil

Do you have a copy of the will so you can post the specific clauses.

On the face of it, it sounds poorly worded (making specific amounts from the sale of a property is unusual) and if it merely says on the sale of, without any triggering event that could be....

Interestingly, if it says on the sale of theoretically the spouse could give the property away or leave it in her will, neither of which would appear to trigger wording related to a sale taking place 

Tigsteroonie

You need to determine ownership of the house in question, was it solely owned by the deceased or joint. I don't understand the will saying "on the sale of the property" if it is joint .... The Land Registry is your place to go for this.

On the presumption that the house was solely owned by the deceased:

Who is the Executor? The house would be sold by the executors, not the wife. It would be for the executors to serve notice on any tenants prior to sale. And it should be the estate that receives the rent, not the wife.

tacpot12

The Will needs to be read to understand what happens to the ownership of the property. The property has been left to the wife, either outright, or with a life interest, or not at all. I'm not sure what happens if the testator hasn't make it clear what they intended regarding the ownership of the property. It is possible that all the gifts to be made when the property is sold will fail as a new outright owner would not be obliged to sell at anytime, and could leave the property to someone else in their will.

However, there is a convention that pecuniary (monetary) bequests are paid before the residuary of the estate is distributed. So if the wife is to receive the residuary (and has not clearly been left the property or a life interest in it), then this may force a sale of the property, so that the pecuniary legacies can be paid.

It doesn't seem unfair if the interpretation is that the wife has inherited a life interest in the property, but when this life interest ends, the property is then to be  sold and the beneficiaries get their legacy. (They would have no rights to income from the property in the mean time.) The Will might end this life interest on certain conditions, e.g. if she remarries. The beneficiaries can't force the sale while the person with the life interest is still alive.

If the testator assumed that the sale would take place when the MIL died, they were wrong to do. Their Will should have stated what was to happen when the MIL died or moved out. Such errors can occur when Wills are drafted inexpertly.

I'm not aware of any default interpretation of the phrase "upon the sale of the property" other than "when the property is sold".

The beneficiaries are going to need legal help to sort this out.  I would recommend that they do get this sorted out now, rather than leaving it until the wife dies. If she leaves the property in he Will, where it is still disputed whether she owns it or not, then it could cause bigger legal bills. 

Dub_and_Dubber

tacpot12 said:

The Will needs to be read to understand what happens to the ownership of the property. The property has been left to the wife, either outright, or with a life interest, or not at all. I'm not sure what happens if the testator hasn't make it clear what they intended regarding the ownership of the property. It is possible that all the gifts to be made when the property is sold will fail as a new outright owner would not be obliged to sell at anytime, and could leave the property to someone else in their will.

However, there is a convention that pecuniary (monetary) bequests are paid before the residuary of the estate is distributed. So if the wife is to receive the residuary (and has not clearly been left the property or a life interest in it), then this may force a sale of the property, so that the pecuniary legacies can be paid.

It doesn't seem unfair if the interpretation is that the wife has inherited a life interest in the property, but when this life interest ends, the property is then to be  sold and the beneficiaries get their legacy. (They would have no rights to income from the property in the mean time.) The Will might end this life interest on certain conditions, e.g. if she remarries. The beneficiaries can't force the sale while the person with the life interest is still alive.

If the testator assumed that the sale would take place when the MIL died, they were wrong to do. Their Will should have stated what was to happen when the MIL died or moved out. Such errors can occur when Wills are drafted inexpertly.

I'm not aware of any default interpretation of the phrase "upon the sale of the property" other than "when the property is sold".

The beneficiaries are going to need legal help to sort this out.  I would recommend that they do get this sorted out now, rather than leaving it until the wife dies. If she leaves the property in he Will, where it is still disputed whether she owns it or not, then it could cause bigger legal bills. 

Thank you. This is excellent.
Better than I had hoped for.
Now to read the other posts :-)

Dub_and_Dubber

Thank you also to all of the other posters above.
I clearly have some homework to do!

Marcon

Dub_and_Dubber said:

Thank you also to all of the other posters above.
I clearly have some homework to do!

I think the good news is that you don't! Just pass a copy of the will over to the solicitor and ask them to interpret. What's being posted here is doubtless intended to be helpful, but in the absence of sight of the actual will, can only be based on surmise and could actually be unintentionally misleading.

Dub_and_Dubber

Marcon said:

Dub_and_Dubber said:

Thank you also to all of the other posters above.
I clearly have some homework to do!

I think the good news is that you don't! Just pass a copy of the will over to the solicitor and ask them to interpret. What's being posted here is doubtless intended to be helpful, but in the absence of sight of the actual will, can only be based on surmise and could actually be unintentionally misleading.

Point taken ... I have access to a copy of the will so shall be reading that carefully as a first act!

Dub_and_Dubber

FYI an update:

There is no link to the property.
This was an error made by someone else as a result (imho) of poor draughting.

What remains now then is to understand the exact nature of the wife's role as a joint trustee, partly given the points made in the following quote (lifted using Google Lens)

"16. I DECLARE that trust moneys may be invested in the purchase of or at interest upon the security of such stocks funds shares securities or other investments of whatsoever nature and wheresoever and whether involving liability or not or upon such personal credit with or without security as my Trustees shall in their absolute discretion think fit to the intent that my Trustees shall have the same full and unrestricted powers of investing and transposing investments in all respects as if they were absolutely entitled thereto beneficially

17. SECTIONS 31 and 32 of the Trustee Act 1925 shall apply hereto subject to the following variations namely:

(a)

Section 31 shall have effect as if the words "my Trustees shall in their

absolute discretion think fit" were substituted in Sub-Section 1(i)

(b)

thereof for the words "may in all circumstances be reasonable" and as if the proviso at the end of Sub-Section (1) thereof were omitted___ Section 32 shall have effect as if the words "advancement maintenance education and benefit" were substituted for the words "advancement or benefit" wherever the same appeared and as if the words "one half of were omitted from proviso (a) to Sub-Section (1) thereof

IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand to this my Will"

As a lay reader I am asking

" why not simply use the terms used in the act?"

GrumpyDil

That element should only kick in if any of the beneficiaries are minors.

The reason for the additional wording is that the Trustee Act wording places limitations on what trustees cabn do in terms of investments etc which many consider too restrictive in modern times and hence the wording extends what the trustees are able to do. (Note that was the case 20 years ago and I haven't looked at that act and any changes since then.).