Is this will valid

youyangs

Yes the bar is low. But is gets higher with suspicious circumstances. Also delusions with an affect on testamentary disposition = invalid will.

youyangs

tooldle said:

youyangs said:

The pockets I was referring to were those of solicitors, not the beneficiaries.

Wills can't be made by those suffering delusions though, if those delusions contributed to the testamentary decision.

I'm still thinking the will writer, knowing the beneficiary and writing a will for them making them the main beneficiary and witnessing the will they wrote, especially when the beneficiary referred the testatrix to them; is an issue. But plenty of people seem to think not...

Are you suggesting coercion rather than lack of capacity?

Coercion would be very hard to prove. But a lack of capacity may be found in suspicious circumstances, without alleging undue influence.

doodling

Hi,

youyangs said:

BooJewels said:

@poppystar is right - sometimes deciding to do nothing and making the conscious decision not to act, is the best outcome - for any number of complicated reasons. Often, just the act of making a decision liberates you from the anguish and brings you peace. 

I've lost 2 family members this year and there was something in each of their Wills caused me some consternation (not necessarily for myself) - but reaching the point, after a few days of churning it over - to just let it go, brought calm and allowed me to move on.  I just had a talk to myself and made that decision.

But I think taking legal advice with some expediency would allow you to at least make any decision from a better informed standpoint - that in itself might be a worthwhile investment.

I'm sorry for your losses.
Not quite ready to let it go yet, but a contentious probate expert may sway me one way or another.
I'll still try to negotiate before that though. Who knows, it may work.

Please accept this in the spirit it is intended, it is difficult to lose someone, and even more difficult when something like this crops up immediately afterwards, you have my sympathy.

You are procrastinating when what is required right now is a decision.

If you continue to procrastinate then probate will go through and you will have a tiny chance of doing anything further.  It might be your intention that the decision is made for you like that, or it might not.

You need to decide whether to enter a caveat.  That decision probably needs to be made by Monday (for all we know that may be too late).

Trying to negotiate without having done that is pointless - the other side will simply wait till they have probate and then ignore you.

If you do decide to enter a caveat then you need to talk to a contentious probate solicitor as a matter of urgency once you have done so to decide what you are going to do next, trying to DIY this is not something anyone should attempt.

For what it is worth, I think the only question here is one of capacity, stuff about conflict of interest isn't relevant as there wasn't one in a sense that a court looking at the will will be interested in.

Apologies if this is a little blunt.

tooldle

youyangs said:

Yes the bar is low. But is gets higher with suspicious circumstances. Also delusions with an affect on testamentary disposition = invalid will.

Capacity is decision specific. The will writer should have notes to confirm mum has understood this specific decision at the time of their meeting. 

I’m not unsympathetic to your situation. I have a parent with dementia and even though they are now at a very advanced stage, from time to time and for very brief spells, they demonstrate capacity. 

youyangs

Ok - it's just that when you wrote "82 year old neighbour" instead of just "neighbour" this implied that you thought the age was relevant.

Perhaps I did think the age was relevant when I quoted it. Obviously there is nothing wrong with choosing a witness of any age, but in this case the witness was 13 years older than the testatrix, who herself was in very poor health. Maybe not a good idea if you want your will "proved", if later required. 

youyangs

Caveat entered.

Hopefully negotiations will provide some route out of the situation.

youyangs

Negotiations are progressing, but I have a couple of questions. Wondering if anyone knows the answers?

 - the will identifies an executor, but if they refuse or are unable to act then someone else is appointed. What is the situation  where both have acted? How can it be possible for both to act?

- a Substitutional Provision directs the residue to an organisation, but the will author had intended to benefit a child beneficiary via their parents. If the parents had pre-deceased the will author, this intention wouldn't have materialised. Does this show a want of knowledge and approval?

p00hsticks

youyangs said:

 - the will identifies an executor, but if they refuse or are unable to act then someone else is appointed. What is the situation  where both have acted? How can it be possible for both to act?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

You can have multiple executors named in a will, and they would be expected to work together jointlly to manage the estate and jointly submit any probate application.

If one doesn't wish to be executor, then they can either 'reserve powers', which means they then don't take an active role but gives them the opportunity to step back in later if needed, or they can renounce their executorship completely and walk away.

 If all executors renounce, then someone will need to apply to administer the estate.

bobster2

youyangs said:

Negotiations are progressing, but I have a couple of questions. Wondering if anyone knows the answers?

 - the will identifies an executor, but if they refuse or are unable to act then someone else is appointed. What is the situation  where both have acted? How can it be possible for both to act?

- a Substitutional Provision directs the residue to an organisation, but the will author had intended to benefit a child beneficiary via their parents. If the parents had pre-deceased the will author, this intention wouldn't have materialised. Does this show a want of knowledge and approval?

So the parents have not pre-deceased the author? But you want to argue that because the will writer didn't take this possibility (that didn't materialise) into account - this somehow shows the whole will is invalid (based on your view of their intentions)?

It thinks this shows "clutching at straws" on your part rather than a solid ground for challenging a will.

youyangs

p00hsticks said:

youyangs said:

 - the will identifies an executor, but if they refuse or are unable to act then someone else is appointed. What is the situation  where both have acted? How can it be possible for both to act?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

You can have multiple executors named in a will, and they would be expected to work together jointlly to manage the estate and jointly submit any probate application.

If one doesn't wish to be executor, then they can either 'reserve powers', which means they then don't take an active role but gives them the opportunity to step back in later if needed, or they can renounce their executorship completely and walk away.

 If all executors renounce, then someone will need to apply to administer the estate.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well? The will explicitly states that there is an executor. If they refuse, or are unable to act then another named individual would be executor. But the first executor has acted and not reserved power. The other executor has also acted. I can't understand the point of the clause, if it can be ignored?