Deputy failed to make a will

Malthusian

LouiseG5033 said:

Hi 

Thank you all for your comments - I really appreciate it. My husband is the youngest sibling and is my BILs half brother. BIL was eldest sibling and his Mum and Dad split up many many years ago and his Dad I remarried many many years ago. So, inheritance will go to Dad and his current family, who BIL  had not seen throughout his adult life. 

So, just to correct my assumption, your husband will not inherit as he is not related to the deceased's father, AIUI.

It's clearly going to be a nice windfall for the father's family (if it isn't spent on care), but it doesn't seem worth stewing over injustice.  The purpose of the compensation was to pay for the costs of his accident, not to leave family members a windfall. Thanks to a quirk of intestacy his family members on his dad's side inherit what's left rather than those on his mother's side. In a perfect world the BIL would have never had an accident, received no compensation, started his own family and never left your husband a penny.

If both parents had predeceased BIL, and his sister was a full sister and had not, your husband would still have inherited nothing as full siblings stand in front of half-siblings in the intestacy queue. Just to emphasise that the prospect of an inheritance was always quite remote. (It isn't entirely clear which people were half siblings and which full siblings so I may have guessed wrong again there.)

LouiseG5033

It’s not reallly about the money as I have said, it’s more about a Dad inheriting well over a million from a son Ho he didn’t see eye to eye with. We would not have fought for compensation for BIL as he never really went anywhere and was entitled to a lot of help as he received certain benefits, so compensation just sat there. It feels like we went through all that stress so BIL dad could inherit it! 

elsien

It bought him a bungalow to live in independently. The alternative would’ve been in a care home. That was certainly worth fighting for. 

LouiseG5033

elsien said:

It bought him a bungalow to live in independently. The alternative would’ve been in a care home. That was certainly worth fighting for. 

Well when you put it like that 👍🏻 I suppose. Solicitors as deputy knew family dynamics though - we made them well aware. 

Spendless

LouiseG5033 said:

It’s not reallly about the money as I have said, it’s more about a Dad inheriting well over a million from a son Ho he didn’t see eye to eye with. We would not have fought for compensation for BIL as he never really went anywhere and was entitled to a lot of help as he received certain benefits, so compensation just sat there. It feels like we went through all that stress so BIL dad could inherit it! 

Well the deputy may not have been able to do that. Or your BiL assessed as not able to make one (which is possibly what happened in my son's friend's Dad case - seen only a month before he died). 

I'm quite sure the family of my son's Uni friend - His Grandmother and Aunts/Uncles  felt the same way since son and Dad  hadn't seen each other for years but that wasn't the son's fault he inherited. Just like it's not your Bil's Dad's fault.

You didn't fight for compensation for his Dad to inherit. You fought to make life better for your BiL after his accident. If his Mum was alive she'd inherit half. If both had already gone it would be whoever is next due to intestacy rules.

This case does show the importance of making a will, even if you believe at the time you have nothing to leave. 

boingy

I think this is a case of having to "accept that which you can't control".

You did brilliantly for your BiL and it made a real difference to him for his remaining years so you should be proud of that. It's better that you won too much money for him than too little. The remaining money going somewhere that you don't want it to can't really be changed now. I think you just have to take a deep breath and move on. Don't let it overshadow the good deed that you did.

techphobe

The fight was to get you BIL what he needed to live well and you did that. 

The real winners of him not having a will are HMRC. £2m estate going to BILs dad - HMRC get £670k. Then when the dad (in 80s with dementia so the money won’t change his life and he probably can’t do any IHT prevention) dies it will be taxed at 40% again. That could be another £500k to HMRC depending on other assets, how much spent on care fees etc. 

Malthusian

techphobe said:

The real winners of him not having a will are HMRC. £2m estate going to BILs dad - HMRC get £670k.

Your figures are right, but HMRC would still get the same amount if he had made a Will. He was only ever going to have one nil rate band, and any form of estate planning was off the table as it wouldn't have been in his interests.

Unless the money was left to charity. (Probably not an option for a statutory Will, but the beneficiaries could have made a deed of variation in favour of charities if it really wasn't about the money.) 

LouiseG5033

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! I agree about the money going to charities. Although I still think any compensation monies left over when someone dies should go back to the insurance company.

Malthusian

LouiseG5033 said:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing! I agree about the money going to charities. Although I still think any compensation monies left over when someone dies should go back to the insurance company.

That was actually an option - by buying a purchase life annuity with the compensation. (Although probably not with the same insurance company.) That would have converted the compensation into a guaranteed fixed income for life (with the option of annual fixed or inflation-linked increases), in return for the capital passing back to the insurance company on death. 

But it would not have given him the security and benefits of homeownership. And it would have removed the option to draw down on the capital if his care needs increased, or if he needed to spend a large sum on adaptations or private medical treatment, etc.