Leaving money - deprivation of assets

Keep_pedalling

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

Could the organisation responsible for the care of the individual challenge the will on the same basis?

No
It has to be the person.

Not true, in certain circumstances they can. If for some reason one spouse has all the matrimonial assets in their name and leave nothing to their spouse then it can be challenged by the spouse’s deputy or attorney. That may apply to a child as well although it might be harder to win. 

There are better options though, I certainly would not do this to a child as I would want them to receive the best care possible rather than rely totally on stretched government resources, so would look to leave their share in a discretionary trust so that they could benefit from top up, equipment the state won’t supply, holidays ect. 

If the OP is in this position they should speak to a STEP solicitor about their will.

diystarter7

Bigwheels1111 said:

I have two brothers, love one, hate the other.
Only one will inherit from me.
Thats life and no one else’s business.

Im hoping the brother above that’s inheriting the money would know why and make sure his brother is secure financially.
why give money to someone knowing it will be taken away. 

Hi
Thank you for a great post. Your money, your choice and anyone that says differently has not really experienced life, IMO. EG, when I was younger, I wondered why it was on the news at times that someone had left all their money to their cats/dogs, charity etc - older and wiser, I now know.

Thanks

HillStreetBlues

Keep_pedalling said:

HillStreetBlues said:

TELLIT01 said:

Could the organisation responsible for the care of the individual challenge the will on the same basis?

No
It has to be the person.

Not true, in certain circumstances they can. If for some reason one spouse has all the matrimonial assets in their name and leave nothing to their spouse then it can be challenged by the spouse’s deputy or attorney. That may apply to a child as well although it might be harder to win. 

There are better options though, I certainly would not do this to a child as I would want them to receive the best care possible rather than rely totally on stretched government resources, so would look to leave their share in a discretionary trust so that they could benefit from top up, equipment the state won’t supply, holidays ect. 

If the OP is in this position they should speak to a STEP solicitor about their will.

The persons name still be the one challenging, an attorney can challenge on behalf of the person.
So it wouldn't be attorney v Smith  it would be Smith v Smith
(That's my understanding of it)

nannytone_2

A slightly different situation, but possibly relevant.

A friend of mine recently lost his mother and his father is making a new will.
My friend us disabled and receives means tested benefit, along with PIP. He also has direct payments and employs a PA  to enable him to live independently.. 

If he were to inherit, the direct payments would stop along woyj means tested benefits.
That isn't the issue though.

The issue is that the inheritance would probably  last a mac of 2 years, given that he would be paying 1k a month in wages for his PA.
Then he would have to go through the social care assessment process again, which can take many months, and would almost certainly result in a much reduced care package.

The family have decided that the older brother will inherit, and help my friend when needed ( they are vlose so the brother would, and does help out  already)

I did suggest a discretionary trust, but the father is 85, in poor health and lives over  250 miles away from either of his sons.   It seems simpler to them to just have the 1 son inherit.

While I don't really agree with what they are doing, I do understand why, as inheriting will just make my friends life more difficult 2 years down the line

kaMelo

Bigwheels1111 said:

I have two brothers, love one, hate the other.
Only one will inherit from me.
Thats life and no one else’s business.

Im hoping the brother above that’s inheriting the money would know why and make sure his brother is secure financially.
why give money to someone knowing it will be taken away. 

The Inheritance Act states that dependants have a right to reasonable financial provision, as to what is reasonable will depend upon individual circumstances. 

Your scenario is completely different though as none of your brothers are your dependants.

NedS

kaMelo said:

Bigwheels1111 said:

I have two brothers, love one, hate the other.
Only one will inherit from me.
Thats life and no one else’s business.

Im hoping the brother above that’s inheriting the money would know why and make sure his brother is secure financially.
why give money to someone knowing it will be taken away. 

The Inheritance Act states that dependants have a right to reasonable financial provision, as to what is reasonable will depend upon individual circumstances. 

At what age is a child no longer dependant? Is that intended to last until a dependant child turns 18 (or leaves full time education), or would a 50 year old child still be considered to be dependant upon their 80 year old parent?

kaMelo

NedS said:

kaMelo said:

Bigwheels1111 said:

I have two brothers, love one, hate the other.
Only one will inherit from me.
Thats life and no one else’s business.

Im hoping the brother above that’s inheriting the money would know why and make sure his brother is secure financially.
why give money to someone knowing it will be taken away. 

The Inheritance Act states that dependants have a right to reasonable financial provision, as to what is reasonable will depend upon individual circumstances. 

At what age is a child no longer dependant? Is that intended to last until a dependant child turns 18 (or leaves full time education), or would a 50 year old child still be considered to be dependant upon their 80 year old parent?

The legislation doesn't specify an age merely that a dependant has a right to reasonable provision. Who is a dependant and what reasonable provision is will be specific and if people don't agree, would take a court to decide. 
Illot v Mitson went all the way to the court of appeal.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/17.html

A summary of the case is written here;
https://www.willwriters.com/blog/illot-v-mitson/

The mother's will gave her estate to various charities but her daughter, in her 40's at the time, challenged it. After appeal the court decided reasonable provision was £163,000, around a third of her mothers estate.