Home insurance and squatters

GDB2222

I thought there’s a 6 month limit on inheritance act claims? That’s 6 months from probate. 

It strikes me that someone with serious learning difficulties living with the deceased might have an extremely strong claim- possibly for the entire estate, effectively disinheriting all the other named beneficiaries. So, I can see why the people in the house might feel strongly about this. 

I think you need to get advice on the strength of this potential claim, and then see whether a settlement can be reached. You would need to discuss this with the other beneficiaries. It’s even more complicated if some of them are minors. 

If this goes to court over the inheritance act issue the minor beneficiaries might need separate legal representation. The costs could go into six figures. So, there’s a strong incentive to sort this out between you. 

FreeBear

GDB2222 said:

I thought there’s a 6 month limit on inheritance act claims? That’s 6 months from probate.

Correct. You have 6 months from the date probate was granted to file a claim. It is possible to lodge a claim later than this, but only if you can convince a judge that there was a very good reason.

GDB2222

FreeBear said:

GDB2222 said:

I thought there’s a 6 month limit on inheritance act claims? That’s 6 months from probate.

Correct. You have 6 months from the date probate was granted to file a claim. It is possible to lodge a claim later than this, but only if you can convince a judge that there was a very good reason.

There could be leeway for someone with learning difficulties perhaps? 

I don’t envy the OP. He desperately needs paid-for legal advice on this.  

Section62

GDB2222 said:

FreeBear said:

GDB2222 said:

I thought there’s a 6 month limit on inheritance act claims? That’s 6 months from probate.

Correct. You have 6 months from the date probate was granted to file a claim. It is possible to lodge a claim later than this, but only if you can convince a judge that there was a very good reason.

There could be leeway for someone with learning difficulties perhaps? 

I don’t envy the OP. He desperately needs paid-for legal advice on this.  

The OP hasn't given details (understandably) of the relationship between the deceased and the person with learning difficulties, so yes, they need to get (better) professional legal help to fully understand the risks.

Furthermore, in the OP's words the people occupying the property are "very aggressive" and "violent and no cooperative" - so there might be a wider safeguarding issue as to whether the person with learning difficulties should be living with these people in this property, and if for some reason a court upheld an Inheritance Act claim, whether the inheritance would actually be used for the benefit of the person in question.

FreeBear

GDB2222 said:

FreeBear said:

GDB2222 said:

I thought there’s a 6 month limit on inheritance act claims? That’s 6 months from probate.

Correct. You have 6 months from the date probate was granted to file a claim. It is possible to lodge a claim later than this, but only if you can convince a judge that there was a very good reason.

There could be leeway for someone with learning difficulties perhaps? 

I don’t envy the OP. He desperately needs paid-for legal advice on this.  

Just to cherry pick from an earlier post from @Smalltownhypocrite

Smalltownhypocrite said: One (living there) was deliberately named and disineritated in the will (but maybe able to dispute it as they have learning difficulties, although someone else would have to launch a dispute as they don't understand).

Yes I am one of the many beneficiary. Everyone involved however knows whats happening at the stalemate with the one causing issues and no one can afford to pursue court currently.

Its all apparently very complex with lots of people involved hence why it would be expensive for a court to sort out.

We haven't been told when probate was granted, so a S.4 claim (for being outside the 6 month window) is speculation. That aside, whilst the disinherited individual might have a case under S.1, the onus is on them to prove it. Behavior leading up to being disinherited would be considered by a judge (see Wright-v-Waters), but ultimately, the supreme court ruling in the Ilot case has reaffirmed the principle of testamentary freedom.

But this is all moot as without a substantial pot of funds available, the case fails before it even gets to the first hurdle of submitting a claim.

RHemmings

In a lawyer's summary of Wright-vs-Waters (child being disinherited), it's mentioned that:

Patricia was an adult claimant with a child and grandchildren of her own. An adult claimant does not need to show that there were special circumstances or a moral obligation in order for a claim to succeed. However, the courts do not look favourably on 'independent' adult claimants (i.e. where an adult child is in employment with an earning capacity for the foreseeable future). Patricia was not financially independent. She also provided evidence that she has serious medical conditions (she suffered a heart attack in 2007 and is wheel chair bound; she suffers from heart disease, angina, diabetes, osteoarthritis, depression, vertigo and cervical spondylosis). Her medical conditions and financial situation should have counted in Patricia's favour but they did not…

(my emphasis) 

https://www.mishcon.com/news/i-wish-you-were-dead-but-im-entitled-to-your-money-estranged-daughter-makes-claim-against-deceaseds-mothers-estate-wright-v-waters-2014-ewhc-3614-ch-12-2014  

Note that the summary goes further:

The Judge was entitled to consider Patricia's conduct toward her Mother. Specifically, the 1975 Act directs a Judge to consider "any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant." In 2001, Patricia sent a letter to her Mother stating that she did not wish to communicate with her and wishing that her Mother were dead. The Judge described the letter as "extreme". Patricia did not see her Mother again and did not attempt to repair their relationship or retract the letter.

Note: I am not arguing one way or the other on this. I'm not even expressing an opinion. I just think that the OP comparing their situation to that of Wright-vs-Waters might make the situation ... not 'clearer' but at least 'more detailed'. 

elsien

I am also thinking that there is a very real difference between a learning difficulty which may well go along with no intellectual cognitive impairment dyslexia, for example) and a diagnosed learning disability (which used to be known as mental handicap) where the person’s understanding will be impacted. 

Grumpy_chap

Smalltownhypocrite said:

No, only one person living there is a beneficiary on the will.

 

There's 4 other beneficiaries (not living there - although half are children so wouldn't need it until 18 anyway).

One (living there) was deliberately named and disineritated in the will (but maybe able to dispute it as they have learning difficulties, although someone else would have to launch a dispute as they don't understand).

The other is a non direct distant family member that has stolen stuff from the estate but has no claim to anything (but has buddied up to the other two and convinced them they deserve it all).

One other non direct family member (not living there) was not left anything which stuck everyone as strange as they got along very well with the deceased and helped out a lot. An agreement was made originally (actually at the suggestion of the one that is now causing the issues) to split it to include this person and the disinheritance one. This family member does not expect anything though and is not causing any issues.

Yes I am one of the many beneficiary. Everyone involved however knows whats happening at the stalemate with the one causing issues and no one can afford to pursue court currently.

It was the solicitor who says they are squatters, the house does not belong to them and they are refusing to allow the state to be settled. They would have to be evicted as squatters before the house could be sold according to the legal advice we received. Its all apparently very complex with lots of people involved hence why it would be expensive for a court to sort out.

The Executor(s) have to follow the Will.
It is not within the gift of the Executor(s) to distribute the Estate other than as per the wishes of the deceased as expressed within the Will.

What is the nature of the "agreement" to split the Estate other than in accordance with the Will?
Was this via a DoV (Deed of Variation)?  This can only be done if all Beneficiaries who stand to lose by the variation have given their agreement.
Who represented the interests of the minors that are Beneficiaries in this assessment?