Transfer Assets now to prevent claim on will.

Sea_Shell

On this theme, but aside from OPs question...

Would a "dependant"* adult sibling be able to make case for more than their share, if under intestacy rules?



* IE having received regular subsidies towards cost of living.


Flugelhorn said:

Hardship is not a reason for them to be able to claim against the estate - if they had been hard up for years and you had regularly sent them some money then it would be a very different matter

GoldenOldy

Flugelhorn, thankyou so much for your advice/counsel. 

I imagine you have a legal background from reading your post.
I really appreciate you taking the time and trouble, and hopefully I will sleep better tonight!

Mojisola

Sea_Shell said:

On this theme, but aside from OPs question...

Would a "dependant"* adult sibling be able to make case for more than their share, if under intestacy rules?

* IE having received regular subsidies towards cost of living.

Yes.  Anyone who has been financially supported by the deceased could make a claim on the estate - regular payments, living rent-free at home, etc.

Sea_Shell

Mojisola said:

Sea_Shell said:

On this theme, but aside from OPs question...

Would a "dependant"* adult sibling be able to make case for more than their share, if under intestacy rules?

* IE having received regular subsidies towards cost of living.

Yes.  Anyone who has been financially supported by the deceased could make a claim on the estate - regular payments, living rent-free at home, etc.

I'm assuming this could be negotiated*, without having to "go legal" and then a DoV used?


* Or offered, to head it off at the pass (as it were)

bobster2

Flugelhorn said:

Hardship is not a reason for them to be able to claim against the estate - if they had been hard up for years and you had regularly sent them some money then it would be a very different matter

The financial needs of the putative "dependent" are relevant, even after a period of estrangement...

Take a look at Ilott v Mitson [2011]...

https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/provision-for-family-and-dependants-act-1975/

Yes - the award was reduced on appeal - but there was still a substantial award.

BooJewels

As I mentioned in another recent thread, when I claimed my late husband's pension (I was named in his expression of wishes), which had a life insurance element too - I was sent a form to complete, which asked for details of all his family members and each one had a tick box asking if they were financially dependent on my husband.  I ticked no to all of them, as none were, even our son, and was paid out in full shortly afterwards.  On small pensions I claimed, there wasn't any such form. 

The amount of hoops they made you jump through was seemingly proportionate to the amount of money being claimed.    I didn't even fill in any forms for the one paying £72, they just sent a cheque a week after my initial enquiry.

Mojisola

bobster2 said:

Flugelhorn said:

Hardship is not a reason for them to be able to claim against the estate - if they had been hard up for years and you had regularly sent them some money then it would be a very different matter

The financial needs of the putative "dependent" are relevant, even after a period of estrangement...
Take a look at Ilott v Mitson [2011]...
https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/provision-for-family-and-dependants-act-1975/
Yes - the award was reduced on appeal - but there was still a substantial award.

I think that case succeeded because all the estate was left to charities.

If it had been left to a spouse, as in this situation, I don't think the claim would have considered to be so strong.

bobster2

Mojisola said:

bobster2 said:

Flugelhorn said:

Hardship is not a reason for them to be able to claim against the estate - if they had been hard up for years and you had regularly sent them some money then it would be a very different matter

The financial needs of the putative "dependent" are relevant, even after a period of estrangement...
Take a look at Ilott v Mitson [2011]...
https://www.birketts.co.uk/legal-update/provision-for-family-and-dependants-act-1975/
Yes - the award was reduced on appeal - but there was still a substantial award.

I think that case succeeded because all the estate was left to charities.

If it had been left to a spouse, as in this situation, I don't think the claim would have considered to be so strong.

Yes - you're probably right. Just wanted to point out that the claimant's financial circumstances can be considered relevant.

GoldenOldy

Bobster..oh my goodness, bang goes my sleep tonight!
As i say , its a strange world when you cannot decide for yourself where your money goes to!

GoldenOldy

Okay here are some thoughts ,if anyone would like to ‘play’.

In the event of a challenge..

1. surely the court (if the worse came to the worse) couldn't leave my ‘bh’ (better half?) any worse off than if i had without a will, i.e 270k of my estate then half of the rest?
2. Because I lived in the house1st and put a large deposit down and my bh came on 8 years later as a joint tenant (and although also subsequently has paid for changes to the property etc), could the courts consider this as fair game?
3. Could the courts come after money in my bh’s own name? (In which case i could just transfer it all over now, or even divorce , split the money formally ,then remarry them all over again?….I know! Am panicking here!)