Are wills legally binding, if not then why bother creating one?

Gobsh

Updated

Seems that wills can only be used to leave your estate directly to someone and that any caviats beyond that can be ignored (pointless)

------

Are wills legally binding, if not then why bother creating one?

I watched a program on wills where a couple created wills to benefit each other, and on the death of both, to be distributed between their 3 children equally, her one child and his two children, all from previous marriages.

He died and she changed the will leaving everything to her son and nothing to his children. The programme was about them challenging the will.

The judge made the decision that his will was not legally binding and just reflected his wishes which was totally bizarre, if not only fit the fact that allll wills are legally binding and reflect their wishes.

My question is really that

Are wills legally binding, if not then why bother creating one?

Brie

His will did what he intended it to do, gave everything to his wife.  After that it's up to her what she does with HER money.  He might say to give some to his kids but she doesn't have to.

I'd say it was a badly written will.

cymruchris

Without seeing the absolute exact wording it's difficult to know exactly what the provisions were, but as above - if the will was written to leave it all to each other, and if they both went at the same time, then to the kids, then once the wife had inherited following his passing, she could leave it all to the donkeys if she so wished, as the first will had been exectuted correctly.

If it had been written along the lines of - leave it to each other and then when we are both gone leave it to the kids (as in not the usual provision of both going together in an accident for example) - then that's a poorly written will.

Once a will has been executed and you've inherited something it's yours (with very few exceptions).

Notepad_Phil

Gobsh said:

 ... Are wills legally binding, if not then why bother creating one?

Yes they are legally binding, but as Brie says, that was a badly written will. There are means by which he could e.g. have specifically left money or the share of a house to the children but gave the income from that money or the use of the house to his wife whilst she lived, but that requires specific instructions/setup and is best left to a proper solicitor to draw up. It's not the first time such an issue has come up and unfortunately it won't be the last.

Gobsh

I don't have to see the wording to KNOW that its not dependent on them both going at the same time, but it does suggest that you can't will anything to anyone beyond the immediate beneficiary, supporting my point that there is no point 

Gobsh

Seems that wills can only be used to leave your estate directly to someone and that any caviats beyond that can be ignored (pointless)

Sarahspangles

I think wills drafted like this are quite common, they rely on the partners trusting each other and following through. They don’t have to be drafted like this, for example half the house can be left to the children with the surviving spouse having the right to remain in the property for life. But the will then needs to cover other likely scenarios like the surviving partner needing to move to a bungalow if they’re to avoid going into care and it all gets really complicated.

cymruchris

Gobsh said:

I don't have to see the wording to KNOW that its not dependent on them both going at the same time, but it does suggest that you can't will anything to anyone beyond the immediate beneficiary, supporting my point that there is no point 

There are definite and clear ways to ensure the children get something - but that's where a properly written will would be needed. As mentioned above - they could have left a percentage of the house in trust to the kids on the first partners passing, with a life trust for the surviving partner to live there until they passed away. So your point of there's no point isn't really valid, if the provisions were carefully considered in the first place, and the will written in such a way that the kids would be guaranteed something no matter what.

p00hsticks

Gobsh said:

Seems that wills can only be used to leave your estate directly to someone and that any caviats beyond that can be ignored (pointless)

Not at all - it is perfectly possible - at least in this country - to leave a person a lifetime (or shorter) interest in something and after their death / a certain amount of time for it to then pass to other named individuals. 

In cases like the one you describe, for example,  it would be not be uncommon for one partner to leave a house they owned to their children, but giving their spouse a lifetime interest to continue living it - either for a specified time, or until a given event  such as their remarrying or their death. But such wills needs to be drawn up professionally to ensure that everything is covered (for example, who pays for the house maintenance ?)    

poseidon1

Gobsh said:

I don't have to see the wording to KNOW that its not dependent on them both going at the same time, but it does suggest that you can't will anything to anyone beyond the immediate beneficiary, supporting my point that there is no point 

Except you can using trusts. 

For example Husband's will could have stated 'I gift my half share of the house on trust for life for my wife and on her death my share reverts to my children'.  The wife gets to enjoy lifetime occupation of the house ( or future replacement ), but with value of his share devolving on his own children on death. All legally binding and enforceable as long as the trustees of the will do their job properly.

Blended families should particularly take note of this route to fair and effective estate planning.

sheramber

His will is for the disposal of his assets, which he left to his wife. That  was legally binding

His will cannot dictate what his widow does with what she inherits. It is hers.

His will is not legally binding on her.

He should have drawn up a will to take into account what would happen  if he died first and he wanted to preserve something for his children.

A properly drawn up will would have done that.