Issue with the Will (not good!)

Lilio8

When I thought that things were moving forward, my solicitors pointed out about an ambiguity, an error it seems on the part of the solicitors who had drafted the Will. I can't imagine my late dearest making such an error since he was very precise, very particular with the details (left me various notes, letters, spreadsheets). I had not noticed the mishap as I had not seen the Will till he was hospitalised (and was too busy running around like a headless chicken between hospitals, doctors and hospice).  The error consists in a portion of the assets not been allocated to anyone. I do recall the my partner had apportioned the estate, ensuring that a portion was to be used to pay IHT ( there is also the house that will need to be sold). How the solicitors didn't spot the missing bit that had not been allocated is beyond my understanding. My legal services are now investigating the ambiguity. This will mean that this portion will be 'intestate' and I will not be able to use it since it'll go to a beneficiary.  This translates for me to a big hole of several £thousands that I will need to fill in somehow!

My solicitor has assured me that we will be able to pay IHT since it is priority above any other legacy.  If I understand correctly, according to my calculations, I will be the one mostly affected since bills/costs will first need to be settled then distribute the inheritance to the respective beneficiaries, before I can receive mine.

I'm planning to meet with both beneficiaries to update them and keep communication open.

Should I have another solicitor to look at the Will for a 2nd opinion, or is it a lost cause?

What do the beneficiaries need to actually know or not?

Any thoughts would greatly appreciated, I need some brainstorming.

user1977

I don’t think anyone here can help without seeing the wording in question?

doodling

Hi,

As has been said, we would need to see the wording to make detailed comments but usually assets that are not specifically allocated go to the residual beneficiaries.

It is quite unusual for a will to have no residual beneficiaries, or to be constructed in such a way that some assets cannot pass to them.

From what you have said about costs, it sounds like you are a (the only?) residual beneficiary - is that the case?

If the other beneficiaries are bequeathed a specific amount (or a specific asset) then they don't need to know about this unless there is a risk that there is insufficient funds to meet their bequests (after costs and IHT which are deducted first).

Keep_pedalling

Surely the will has residual beneficiaries and any unallocated assets fall within the residual estate. If it doesn’t then the unallocated assets are distributed under intestacy laws. IHT will normally come out of these residual assets.

mattojgb

Can happen when a residual beneficiary dies and the will is not updated and there is no fallback position. Rules of intestacy apply to the residual estate if this part of the will fails.

Would be very unusual though for no residual beneficiary to be named in a will. Though from what you say it sounds like you are the residual beneficiary, i.e. you get everything remaining once the specific legacies (and expenses) have been paid out.

Marcon

Lilio8 said:

When I thought that things were moving forward, my solicitors pointed out about an ambiguity, an error it seems on the part of the solicitors who had drafted the Will. I can't imagine my late dearest making such an error since he was very precise, very particular with the details (left me various notes, letters, spreadsheets). I had not noticed the mishap as I had not seen the Will till he was hospitalised (and was too busy running around like a headless chicken between hospitals, doctors and hospice).  The error consists in a portion of the assets not been allocated to anyone. I do recall the my partner had apportioned the estate, ensuring that a portion was to be used to pay IHT ( there is also the house that will need to be sold). How the solicitors didn't spot the missing bit that had not been allocated is beyond my understanding. My legal services are now investigating the ambiguity. This will mean that this portion will be 'intestate' and I will not be able to use it since it'll go to a beneficiary.  This translates for me to a big hole of several £thousands that I will need to fill in somehow!

My solicitor has assured me that we will be able to pay IHT since it is priority above any other legacy.  If I understand correctly, according to my calculations, I will be the one mostly affected since bills/costs will first need to be settled then distribute the inheritance to the respective beneficiaries, before I can receive mine.

I'm planning to meet with both beneficiaries to update them and keep communication open.

Should I have another solicitor to look at the Will for a 2nd opinion, or is it a lost cause?

What do the beneficiaries need to actually know or not?

Any thoughts would greatly appreciated, I need some brainstorming.

I don't think you do. The legal position will be whatever it is, and your solicitors seem to have spotted and explained it to you. By all means get a second opinion if it sets your mind at rest, but as a legal point it's fairly straightforward.

I appreciate that the news was deeply unwelcome, but as your solicitor has correctly pointed out, IHT is paid by the estate before any legacies are paid out, so there's no issue there. If (as it sounds) you are the residual beneficiary, then yes, it will decrease what you receive, I'm afraid.

mattojgb

Marcon said:

Lilio8 said:

 The error consists in a portion of the assets not been allocated to anyone. I do recall the my partner had apportioned the estate, ensuring that a portion was to be used to pay IHT ( there is also the house that will need to be sold). How the solicitors didn't spot the missing bit that had not been allocated is beyond my understanding. My legal services are now investigating the ambiguity. This will mean that this portion will be 'intestate' and I will not be able to use it since it'll go to a beneficiary.  This translates for me to a big hole of several £thousands that I will need to fill in somehow!

My solicitor has assured me that we will be able to pay IHT since it is priority above any other legacy.  If I understand correctly, according to my calculations, I will be the one mostly affected since bills/costs will first need to be settled then distribute the inheritance to the respective beneficiaries, before I can receive mine.

...

I don't think you do. The legal position will be whatever it is, and your solicitors seem to have spotted and explained it to you. By all means get a second opinion if it sets your mind at rest, but as a legal point it's fairly straightforward.

I appreciate that the news was deeply unwelcome, but as your solicitor has correctly pointed out, IHT is paid by the estate before any legacies are paid out, so there's no issue there. If (as it sounds) you are the residual beneficiary, then yes, it will decrease what you receive, I'm afraid.

Original post doesn't seem to make sense.

It seems like a portion of the estate is not part of a specific/demonstrative/pecuniary legacy. It therefore forms part of the residual estate. That would seem to mean there is more in the residuary estate than was expected.

If OP is the beneficiary of the residual estate - and the statement that they are getting what is left over suggests they are, then they will receive more.

However if this is the situation then intestacy rules don't apply so not sure why OP would have brought them up 🤷‍♂️

Lilio8

doodling said:

Hi,

As has been said, we would need to see the wording to make detailed comments but usually assets that are not specifically allocated go to the residual beneficiaries.

It is quite unusual for a will to have no residual beneficiaries, or to be constructed in such a way that some assets cannot pass to them.

From what you have said about costs, it sounds like you are a (the only?) residual beneficiary - is that the case?

If the other beneficiaries are bequeathed a specific amount (or a specific asset) then they don't need to know about this unless there is a risk that there is insufficient funds to meet their bequests (after costs and IHT which are deducted first).

Thank you for the reply.

I am one of the beneficiaries, there are 2 more beneficiaries (blood related).

Lilio8

mattojgb said:

Marcon said:

Lilio8 said:

 The error consists in a portion of the assets not been allocated to anyone. I do recall the my partner had apportioned the estate, ensuring that a portion was to be used to pay IHT ( there is also the house that will need to be sold). How the solicitors didn't spot the missing bit that had not been allocated is beyond my understanding. My legal services are now investigating the ambiguity. This will mean that this portion will be 'intestate' and I will not be able to use it since it'll go to a beneficiary.  This translates for me to a big hole of several £thousands that I will need to fill in somehow!

My solicitor has assured me that we will be able to pay IHT since it is priority above any other legacy.  If I understand correctly, according to my calculations, I will be the one mostly affected since bills/costs will first need to be settled then distribute the inheritance to the respective beneficiaries, before I can receive mine.

...

I don't think you do. The legal position will be whatever it is, and your solicitors seem to have spotted and explained it to you. By all means get a second opinion if it sets your mind at rest, but as a legal point it's fairly straightforward.

I appreciate that the news was deeply unwelcome, but as your solicitor has correctly pointed out, IHT is paid by the estate before any legacies are paid out, so there's no issue there. If (as it sounds) you are the residual beneficiary, then yes, it will decrease what you receive, I'm afraid.

Original post doesn't seem to make sense.

It seems like a portion of the estate is not part of a specific/demonstrative/pecuniary legacy. It therefore forms part of the residual estate. That would seem to mean there is more in the residuary estate than was expected.

If OP is the beneficiary of the residual estate - and the statement that they are getting what is left over suggests they are, then they will receive more.

However if this is the situation then intestacy rules don't apply so not sure why OP would have brought them up 🤷‍♂️

Thank you for your reply.

Sorry if it does not make a lot of sense. I cannot disclose what the Will actually reads. It's the best that I can do to describe the situation.

There are 3 beneficiaries, one is myself (not blood related) and 2 others (blood related), if that makes sense.

Why do I bring up the beneficiaries? Because a) I'm not familiar with 'legalese' and probate, not my area of expertise; b) they are in the picture, I'm also responsible for the distribution of assets to them; c) I think that to keep some level of communication open is important.

Lilio8

doodling said:

Hi,

As has been said, we would need to see the wording to make detailed comments but usually assets that are not specifically allocated go to the residual beneficiaries.

It is quite unusual for a will to have no residual beneficiaries, or to be constructed in such a way that some assets cannot pass to them.

From what you have said about costs, it sounds like you are a (the only?) residual beneficiary - is that the case?

If the other beneficiaries are bequeathed a specific amount (or a specific asset) then they don't need to know about this unless there is a risk that there is insufficient funds to meet their bequests (after costs and IHT which are deducted first).

Thank you for your reply.

I think that I'll have just enough left over to distribute to the 2 blood related beneficiaries (I'm the non-blood related beneficiary) after paying IHT and the sale of the property. But I'll probably have to take it out of my inheritance and I'm assuming that the house will not sell below £300k.

Keep_pedalling

Lilio8 said:

doodling said:

Hi,

As has been said, we would need to see the wording to make detailed comments but usually assets that are not specifically allocated go to the residual beneficiaries.

It is quite unusual for a will to have no residual beneficiaries, or to be constructed in such a way that some assets cannot pass to them.

From what you have said about costs, it sounds like you are a (the only?) residual beneficiary - is that the case?

If the other beneficiaries are bequeathed a specific amount (or a specific asset) then they don't need to know about this unless there is a risk that there is insufficient funds to meet their bequests (after costs and IHT which are deducted first).

Thank you for your reply.

I think that I'll have just enough left over to distribute to the 2 blood related beneficiaries (I'm the non-blood related beneficiary) after paying IHT and the sale of the property. But I'll probably have to take it out of my inheritance and I'm assuming that the house will not sell below £300k.

Why do you think it should come from your share alone? Are you the sole residual beneficiary or have you been left a specific sum? Have the blood relatives been left a specific amount or are they residual beneficiaries?