Understanding a will

Keep_pedalling

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

poseidon1

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Possibly, but it appeared to be only the son's names on my reading.

 If the wording absolutely  does appear in that clause, it merely reinforces the lack of clarity with regard to deceased's intentions. 

Scottish_Dorset

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

Keep_pedalling

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

That would seem to be somewhat problematic at the clauses give the same assets to two seperate groups of people. 

What the testator actually wanted could be one of three things.

1. His wife to inherit the residual estate, but if she did not survive him, his sons to inherit instead.

2. For all three to inherit equally.

3. His wife to inherit a percentage of the estate and the sons to share the rest.

For 1 to work there should have also been a survival clause, for 2 & 3 to work it should have been a single clause naming all 3 and the percentage they were each to receive.

Looks like the solicitors screwed up badly here.

Scottish_Dorset

Keep_pedalling said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

That would seem to be somewhat problematic at the clauses give the same assets to two seperate groups of people. 

What the testator actually wanted could be one of three things.

1. His wife to inherit the residual estate, but if she did not survive him, his sons to inherit instead.

2. For all three to inherit equally.

3. His wife to inherit a percentage of the estate and the sons to share the rest.

For 1 to work there should have also been a survival clause, for 2 & 3 to work it should have been a single clause naming all 3 and the percentage they were each to receive.

Looks like the solicitors screwed up badly here.

Thank you.  Should their next step be to talk to a solicitor about it to see what could be done?  Seems like it has not been written with clarity and open to a certain level of interpretation.

Keep_pedalling

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

That would seem to be somewhat problematic at the clauses give the same assets to two seperate groups of people. 

What the testator actually wanted could be one of three things.

1. His wife to inherit the residual estate, but if she did not survive him, his sons to inherit instead.

2. For all three to inherit equally.

3. His wife to inherit a percentage of the estate and the sons to share the rest.

For 1 to work there should have also been a survival clause, for 2 & 3 to work it should have been a single clause naming all 3 and the percentage they were each to receive.

Looks like the solicitors screwed up badly here.

Thank you.  Should their next step be to talk to a solicitor about it to see what could be done?  Seems like it has not been written with clarity and open to a certain level of interpretation.

That would be my next step.

Flugelhorn

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

That would seem to be somewhat problematic at the clauses give the same assets to two seperate groups of people. 

What the testator actually wanted could be one of three things.

1. His wife to inherit the residual estate, but if she did not survive him, his sons to inherit instead.

2. For all three to inherit equally.

3. His wife to inherit a percentage of the estate and the sons to share the rest.

For 1 to work there should have also been a survival clause, for 2 & 3 to work it should have been a single clause naming all 3 and the percentage they were each to receive.

Looks like the solicitors screwed up badly here.

Thank you.  Should their next step be to talk to a solicitor about it to see what could be done?  Seems like it has not been written with clarity and open to a certain level of interpretation.

Blimey yes  - interesting to see what they say ! Giving same pot of money to 2 groups of people is not wise

poseidon1

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

I enlarged the two redacted parts of clause 6.2.

The word absolutely does not appear anywhere in that clause merely the sons names ( which I will not mention). It is unhelpful your insisting to the contrary. 

Despite the poor drafting what I have read is consistent with scenario 1) of Keep_pedalling's post above. 

If the sons decide to obtain independent advice in this matter I suspect  recourse maybe made to  correspondence ( if still available) between the solicitor and testator prior to execution of the will. This may well confirm an intention for the spouse to solely benefit from residue in the event she survived him. I would not hold out much hope for an alternative outcome, the defective Will does not support this.

In the meantime, I would certainly push for receipt of detailed estate accounts ( if not already supplied) outlining how the specific legacies were calculated. The poor drafting of the Will suggests to me the firm's competency in other aspects of estate administration can be assumed to be suspect. 

Flugelhorn

The last word of 6.2 definitely looks like ABSOLUTELY 

Scottish_Dorset

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Keep_pedalling said:

poseidon1 said:

Scottish_Dorset said:

The will was written by a solicitor, from a large established local firm.  The funeral was held during COVID times so small scale with no wake afterwards.  They way I read it is: Clause 6 is Absolute Residuary Gifts, with clause 6.1 and 6.2 listing the second wife and my husband and his brother respectively.  The terminology used in each clause is similar.  I'm assuming the £162K probate is bank accounts, cash etc.  

My comment re poor drafting stands. 

However it is  beneficial a solicitor is in the mix. The brother's require detailed estate accounts (prepared by the solicitors)  showing the breakdown of the £162k. Their legacies were not a fixed pecuniary amount, so they are fully entitled to see the accounts or if none prepared require this be done.

As for the wording of the clauses, they are not quite identical. 6.1 specifically states to spouse 'absolutely'.  That word has a particular meaning in the  lexicon of wills drafting  and encompasses the entirety of the remaining estate with nothing left upon which clause  6.2 can then bite. This is  despite both clauses  falling under the heading 'Absolute Residuary Gifts'.

I think the OP has accidentally blanked the last word on 6.2 which looks like it might be ‘absoluty’

Yes, it does say absolutely.

I enlarged the two redacted parts of clause 6.2.

The word absolutely does not appear anywhere in that clause merely the sons names ( which I will not mention). It is unhelpful your insisting to the contrary. 

Despite the poor drafting what I have read is consistent with scenario 1) of Keep_pedalling's post above. 

If the sons decide to obtain independent advice in this matter I suspect  recourse maybe made to  correspondence ( if still available) between the solicitor and testator prior to execution of the will. This may well confirm an intention for the spouse to solely benefit from residue in the event she survived him. I would not hold out much hope for an alternative outcome, the defective Will does not support this.

In the meantime, I would certainly push for receipt of detailed estate accounts ( if not already supplied) outlining how the specific legacies were calculated. The poor drafting of the Will suggests to me the firm's competency in other aspects of estate administration can be assumed to be suspect. 

I can confirm, I am looking at the original copy now, it DOES say Absolutely at the end of clause 6.2.