Money left to children

blokeandbird

Thanks for your replies. There was me thinking the money would just get locked away for a few years and that would be that. Haha

Keep_pedalling

silvercar said:

Would a deed of variation work? Only those who potentially lose out would have to agree to it.

No, a minor cannot make a deed of variation.

blokeandbird

This is in the will as well (not sure if it could make a difference). And all other people named are adults - apart from my 3 children. Thanks 

silvercar

Keep_pedalling said:

silvercar said:

Would a deed of variation work? Only those who potentially lose out would have to agree to it.

No, a minor cannot make a deed of variation.

If you have a co-operative family, then no one is likely to sue someone for breaching the exact wording of the will. With a similar clause, we just put the money in accounts in the names of the children, the parents controlled the accounts of the minors and the parents chose when to reveal to their offspring their inheritance. If the worse had happened and one of the grandchildren not survived to 21, then theoretically the other grandchildren could have asked for their share of the deceased’s inheritance. But I couldn’t imagine that anyone would have behaved like that. If a deceased grandchild had spent the money and not survived to 21, I suppose that another grandchild could have demanded their share of the money from the executors, which would have been their own parent and the parent of the deceased. I can’t imagine anyone in our family behaving like that.

poseidon1

blokeandbird said:

This is in the will as well (not sure if it could make a difference). And all other people named are adults - apart from my 3 children. Thanks 

That clause does not assist since it only comes into play if all 5 children die before the age 21 vesting age, leaving no children to take that pot. As Keep_pedalling pointed out minors cannot engage in deeds of variation, which is what would be needed to eliminate the survivial contingency between them.

poseidon1

silvercar said:

Keep_pedalling said:

silvercar said:

Would a deed of variation work? Only those who potentially lose out would have to agree to it.

No, a minor cannot make a deed of variation.

If you have a co-operative family, then no one is likely to sue someone for breaching the exact wording of the will. With a similar clause, we just put the money in accounts in the names of the children, the parents controlled the accounts of the minors and the parents chose when to reveal to their offspring their inheritance. If the worse had happened and one of the grandchildren not survived to 21, then theoretically the other grandchildren could have asked for their share of the deceased’s inheritance. But I couldn’t imagine that anyone would have behaved like that. If a deceased grandchild had spent the money and not survived to 21, I suppose that another grandchild could have demanded their share of the money from the executors, which would have been their own parent and the parent of the deceased. I can’t imagine anyone in our family behaving like that.

Sure, the executor/trustee could ignore the instructions in the will that imposed the primary responsibility on them ( rather than the children's respective parents) to preserve the trust funds until each child attains the appropriate vesting age.

However, the additional risk in that scenario ( apart from child dying early ) is the respective parents not fulfilling the task delegated to them either by misappropriation of the child's funds for their own benefit, or making inappropriate investments and losing all or part of the money as a result.

As to the risk of misappropriation by the parent, I have seen a couple stories on this forum of that exact thing happening ( not everyone live in perfect family bliss and harmony like the Waltons). In any event if a particular child's trust fund goes pear shaped ( for whatever reason) the buck stops with the original trustee/executor both morally and legally, and the child/children concerned can (and should) pursue the original trustee for recompense.

I would suggest the larger the sums of money involved the higher the risk of undesirable outcomes if one attempts ( as primary trustee) to delegate ones duties in this casual way.

blokeandbird

So presumably a simple bank account in the children’s names but held in trust by the executors (only 1 executor is the parent - the rest are aunties/uncles) until the children are 21 is not an option. 

I am trying to arrange an appointment with the solicitors but just trying to go armed with possible solutions. 

Thanks again

silvercar

poseidon1 said:

silvercar said:

Keep_pedalling said:

silvercar said:

Would a deed of variation work? Only those who potentially lose out would have to agree to it.

No, a minor cannot make a deed of variation.

If you have a co-operative family, then no one is likely to sue someone for breaching the exact wording of the will. With a similar clause, we just put the money in accounts in the names of the children, the parents controlled the accounts of the minors and the parents chose when to reveal to their offspring their inheritance. If the worse had happened and one of the grandchildren not survived to 21, then theoretically the other grandchildren could have asked for their share of the deceased’s inheritance. But I couldn’t imagine that anyone would have behaved like that. If a deceased grandchild had spent the money and not survived to 21, I suppose that another grandchild could have demanded their share of the money from the executors, which would have been their own parent and the parent of the deceased. I can’t imagine anyone in our family behaving like that.

Sure, the executor/trustee could ignore the instructions in the will that imposed the primary responsibility on them ( rather than the children's respective parents) to preserve the trust funds until each child attains the appropriate vesting age.

However, the additional risk in that scenario ( apart from child dying early ) is the respective parents not fulfilling the task delegated to them either by misappropriation of the child's funds for their own benefit, or making inappropriate investments and losing all or part of the money as a result.

As to the risk of misappropriation by the parent, I have seen a couple stories on this forum of that exact thing happening ( not everyone live in perfect family bliss and harmony like the Waltons). In any event if a particular child's trust fund goes pear shaped ( for whatever reason) the buck stops with the original trustee/executor both morally and legally, and the child/children concerned can (and should) pursue the original trustee for recompense.

I would suggest the larger the sums of money involved the higher the risk of undesirable outcomes if one attempts ( as primary trustee) to delegate ones duties in this casual way.

The parents couldn’t appropriate the funds as they were put in the names of their children.

It wasn’t a casual way, it was a deliberate decision to minimise the costs of administering trusts etc in order that the beneficiaries inheritance is maximised. Also, 2 of the grandchildren were already over 21, 1 over 18 and 1 over 16, so the time before a DoV could have been done was relatively short.

Spendless

Not that this helps the OP, just mentioning it for others reading along,  but I do wish people would talk through their intentions about what they've done with a will before it  comes to light after their death. My parents had something similarly nonsensical in their wills when leaving to Grandchildren about them getting to 25. Only one has reached that age so far, the others are still younger and these Wills  if parents had died would have taken 14 years for the youngest to get to the 'magic' age. 

Fortunately it came to light when I had reason to ask them about their wills and discovered it along with other barmy stuff like one of them leaving me a property  they didn't own - seriously. They'd made their wills at a time of high emotional stress and just weren't thinking about what they said. Thankfully I was able to point this out and they went back to (a different) solicitor showed them what they'd put and what they wanted and the new solicitor suggested starting again but I'm well aware of what a mess could have ben left if my parents had died with their old wills in place.

RAS

There were a load of wills drafted by someone working for or with a major top 5 banks some years ago, often for relatively affluent people. These typically divided assets into different classes and left each to different people. Spouse got the named house (and shared assets), children and sometimes grandchildren then shared or were allocated different assets. So the son might get the shareholding and daughter the savings. 

That house might have been sold, the shares converted to cash, or the other way round. Or a less scrupulous spouse moved everything into the shared accounts. 

More recent nightmares include parents leaving their portion of the house to the children and a IPDI trust to protect their spouse, but failing to sever the tenancy.