Deed of variation and proprietary/promissory estoppel

Namu

My Aunt died leaving an unsigned Will. The Will was to have been for one beneficiary, however due to dyeing intestate there are now beneficiaries including me. A deed of variation was agreed and signed by all four beneficiaries dividing the estate four ways .Subsequent to this agreement the original named beneficiary has decided he wants a larger share of the estate. We remaining three beneficiaries want the original D of V to be honoured. The handling solicitor has refused to disburse the estate monies as they think the disgruntled beneficiary could make a claim under  "proprietary/promissory estoppel".

1 As the deed of variation has been agreed and signed by all four beneficiaries is this legally binding or can it be overridden by using the proprietary/promissory estoppel.

2 Is the solicitor legally correct in withholding the remaining funds as they have already released and advanced some funds from the house sale?

msb1234

I’d think the solicitor is correct in withholding the money until such point as a new agreement is made. I would think that as the original unsigned will only had 1 beneficiary, and they agreed to share their potential inheritance with 3 others, they may well have a claim. 

Savvy_Sue

I feel that if a solicitor is involved you have to follow their guidance, however, if the terms of the Deed of Variation put you in the same position as if there was no will, then I am not sure what purpose it served? 

Who is the solicitor acting for? If it's not you, then you are at liberty to find your own solicitor and see if they agree with this one. 

And how much are we talking about? Contentious probate (which this could well be) is not cheap. Any advantage to you could be rapidly overtaken by the cost of fighting for this. 

poppystar

Savvy_Sue said:

I feel that if a solicitor is involved you have to follow their guidance, however, if the terms of the Deed of Variation put you in the same position as if there was no will, then I am not sure what purpose it served? 

That confused me at first but I wonder if the beneficiaries are from different stems as it is an aunt so if three were from one stem and the (disgruntled) one was from a different one then the split would be 50/50 each stem so those from the stem with more beneficiaries would only get 1/3 of the 50% under intestacy but they might have agreed the DoV to share at 25% each. Maybe OP could confirm. 

This means the Will is really a red herring here and the disgruntled one is wanting the intestacy share not anything to do with what they would have got under the failed Will. It would explain why the solicitor is being cautious too.

Marcon

Namu said:

My Aunt died leaving an unsigned Will. The Will was to have been for one beneficiary, however due to dyeing intestate there are now ???????? beneficiaries including me. A deed of variation was agreed and signed by all four beneficiaries dividing the estate four ways .

I'm confused. Is there a number missing where I've put ????? I presume it was four - in which case why was a Deed of Variation needed at all? 

Savvy_Sue

Poppystar explained, I feel

poppystar said:

That confused me at first but I wonder if the beneficiaries are from different stems as it is an aunt so if three were from one stem and the (disgruntled) one was from a different one then the split would be 50/50 each stem so those from the stem with more beneficiaries would only get 1/3 of the 50% under intestacy but they might have agreed the DoV to share at 25% each. Maybe OP could confirm. 

This means the Will is really a red herring here and the disgruntled one is wanting the intestacy share not anything to do with what they would have got under the failed Will. It would explain why the solicitor is being cautious too.

Although without knowing the relationships, or who is disgruntled, it's impossible to be sure.

Mojisola

Namu said:

My Aunt died leaving an unsigned Will.

The Will was to have been for one beneficiary, however due to dyeing intestate there are now beneficiaries including me.

A deed of variation was agreed and signed by all four beneficiaries dividing the estate four ways .

Just for clarification, what would the distribution have been under the intestacy rules?

Flugelhorn

definitely need a bit more info to be able to comment - ie how many beneficiaries and what percentage they would have got under intestacy

Spendless

My guess is along the lines that Aunt wasn't married and had no children but had 2 already deceased siblings. Aunt's sibling 1 had 1 child, and the will that turned out to be invalid due to being unsigned left everything to Sibling 1s only child.

Aunt's sibling 2 had 3 children.
Under the rules of intestacy  Sibling 1's child inherits what would have been their parents share ie 50% and sibling 2s 3 children inherit the other 50% between them so roughly 16.66% each. A DOV is done so all 4 receive 25% each, but then the only child of sibling 1 changes their mind and wants to revert to what they should have had 50%.

Assuming I'm correct
the bit about the will is only relevant in that the only child would have inherited everything and their cousins nothing if it had been valid and possibly where they're now feeling disgruntled about all 4 having an equal share. Though that begs the question why agree to the DofV in the first place. 

But yes the OP needs to clarify the situation in order to help with replies. 

Marcon

Savvy_Sue said:

Poppystar explained, I feel

poppystar said:

That confused me at first but I wonder if the beneficiaries are from different stems as it is an aunt so if three were from one stem and the (disgruntled) one was from a different one then the split would be 50/50 each stem so those from the stem with more beneficiaries would only get 1/3 of the 50% under intestacy but they might have agreed the DoV to share at 25% each. Maybe OP could confirm. 

This means the Will is really a red herring here and the disgruntled one is wanting the intestacy share not anything to do with what they would have got under the failed Will. It would explain why the solicitor is being cautious too.

Although without knowing the relationships, or who is disgruntled, it's impossible to be sure.

A Deed of Variation would only be needed to vary the rules of intestacy - and OP has said there were four beneficiaries and all four signed the Deed of Variation. Hence my question: why have one at all when it appears that the one actually signed by all four simply confirms the position? Poppystar may well be correct, but it doesn't explain why four people signed a document which did nothing to change the position.

poppystar

Marcon said:

Savvy_Sue said:

Poppystar explained, I feel

poppystar said:

That confused me at first but I wonder if the beneficiaries are from different stems as it is an aunt so if three were from one stem and the (disgruntled) one was from a different one then the split would be 50/50 each stem so those from the stem with more beneficiaries would only get 1/3 of the 50% under intestacy but they might have agreed the DoV to share at 25% each. Maybe OP could confirm. 

This means the Will is really a red herring here and the disgruntled one is wanting the intestacy share not anything to do with what they would have got under the failed Will. It would explain why the solicitor is being cautious too.

Although without knowing the relationships, or who is disgruntled, it's impossible to be sure.

A Deed of Variation would only be needed to vary the rules of intestacy - and OP has said there were four beneficiaries and all four signed the Deed of Variation. Hence my question: why have one at all when it appears that the one actually signed by all four simply confirms the position? Poppystar may well be correct, but it doesn't explain why four people signed a document which did nothing to change the position.

If it is the scenario I outlined (and yes, a big if, since we don’t have the information) then it does change the position from beneficiary 1 50% beneficiaries 2,3&4 16.67% to 25% each . Hence it isn’t confirming the intestacy position it is changing it. The scenario assumes two stems - aunt’s siblings - with one child and three children respectively. It seems to me that is the only scenario with four beneficiaries where a DoV would be needed and I doubt a solicitor would have drawn one up for no reason.