Advice re contentious will please

Hoenir

doodling said:

Hi,

Flowerpotperson said:

I am joint Executer in my recently deceased uncles will. There are a number of beneficiaries split across two families. The estate has not been divided equally, with the lion share going to the residuary beneficiary. She stands to inherit a substantial life changing amount of money, and is unwilling to do the honourable thing and share it amongst the other beneficiaries.

All of the other beneficiaries are very unhappy with this and may challenge the will.

As Executer and Trustee is there anything that I can do to split the estate in a more equitable way. Within the will I have been given the power to re direct assets to other benefices (i.e. his property), but I’m not sure if the residuary beneficiary would need to agree to this, and what the procedure would be to do this.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

My advice to the executor would also be to do the honorable thing and respect the deceased's wishes.  

Executors have a legal duty. Executors can also expose themselves to personal liability. Not a role that should be accepted and undertaken lightly. 

marcia_

 How and why would it be the honourable thing? She was left it they were not for a reason only the giver knew 🤷 

Keep_pedalling

marcia_ said:

 How and why would it be the honourable thing? She was left it they were not for a reason only the giver knew 🤷 

To be fair I don’t think it is that simple, a lot of changes will have happened over those 17 years and it was probably not reviewed on the death of the uncle’s wife or when the RNRB was introduced. Based on the OPs other thread, HMRC are going to be major beneficiaries as his step daughter only gets a small bequest so neither RNRB can be used (up to £130k in IHT). Yes he may not have a great relationship with her but it is highly likely that his estate contained a significant amount inherited from her mother.

The moral of this story is not to make a will and forget it. Sometimes it is better to die intestate than die with an old will that takes no account in changes in relationships and tax law. That lovely 10 year old you wanted to leave your estate to is now a 30 year old serial killer but still inherits because you did not review that 20 year old will. 

Hoenir

The moral of the story is that the deceased gets vilified . With the entire focus on the amount of money left and who gets it.  

Section62

Keep_pedalling said:

marcia_ said:

 How and why would it be the honourable thing? She was left it they were not for a reason only the giver knew 🤷 

To be fair I don’t think it is that simple, a lot of changes will have happened over those 17 years and it was probably not reviewed on the death of the uncle’s wife or when the RNRB was introduced. Based on the OPs other thread, HMRC are going to be major beneficiaries as his step daughter only gets a small bequest so neither RNRB can be used (up to £130k in IHT). Yes he may not have a great relationship with her but it is highly likely that his estate contained a significant amount inherited from her mother.

The moral of this story is not to make a will and forget it. Sometimes it is better to die intestate than die with an old will that takes no account in changes in relationships and tax law. That lovely 10 year old you wanted to leave your estate to is now a 30 year old serial killer but still inherits because you did not review that 20 year old will. 

Also, with property prices increasing as they have, what may have looked like a fair and balanced will 20 years ago could look very lopsided now.  It may not have been the intent of a testator to distribute unequally, but changes in the value of assets could have that unintended consequence.

Silvertabby

Section62 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

marcia_ said:

 How and why would it be the honourable thing? She was left it they were not for a reason only the giver knew 🤷 

To be fair I don’t think it is that simple, a lot of changes will have happened over those 17 years and it was probably not reviewed on the death of the uncle’s wife or when the RNRB was introduced. Based on the OPs other thread, HMRC are going to be major beneficiaries as his step daughter only gets a small bequest so neither RNRB can be used (up to £130k in IHT). Yes he may not have a great relationship with her but it is highly likely that his estate contained a significant amount inherited from her mother.

The moral of this story is not to make a will and forget it. Sometimes it is better to die intestate than die with an old will that takes no account in changes in relationships and tax law. That lovely 10 year old you wanted to leave your estate to is now a 30 year old serial killer but still inherits because you did not review that 20 year old will. 

Also, with property prices increasing as they have, what may have looked like a fair and balanced will 20 years ago could look very lopsided now.  It may not have been the intent of a testator to distribute unequally, but changes in the value of assets could have that unintended consequence.

Or the Will could leave the property 1 Acacia Drive to the only child, with cash assets going to a named charity.  But, by the time of death, the house had been sold to pay for care home fees, meaning the gift to the child failed - while the charity got the £KKKKKs left in cash.  

Marcon

Keep_pedalling said:

marcia_ said:

 How and why would it be the honourable thing? She was left it they were not for a reason only the giver knew 🤷 

To be fair I don’t think it is that simple, a lot of changes will have happened over those 17 years and it was probably not reviewed on the death of the uncle’s wife or when the RNRB was introduced. Based on the OPs other thread, HMRC are going to be major beneficiaries as his step daughter only gets a small bequest so neither RNRB can be used (up to £130k in IHT). Yes he may not have a great relationship with her but it is highly likely that his estate contained a significant amount inherited from her mother.

The moral of this story is not to make a will and forget it. Sometimes it is better to die intestate than die with an old will that takes no account in changes in relationships and tax law. That lovely 10 year old you wanted to leave your estate to is now a 30 year old serial killer but still inherits because you did not review that 20 year old will. 

...provided of course that they didn't kill the testator, which would preclude them from inheriting....

Emmia

Section62 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

marcia_ said:

 How and why would it be the honourable thing? She was left it they were not for a reason only the giver knew 🤷 

To be fair I don’t think it is that simple, a lot of changes will have happened over those 17 years and it was probably not reviewed on the death of the uncle’s wife or when the RNRB was introduced. Based on the OPs other thread, HMRC are going to be major beneficiaries as his step daughter only gets a small bequest so neither RNRB can be used (up to £130k in IHT). Yes he may not have a great relationship with her but it is highly likely that his estate contained a significant amount inherited from her mother.

The moral of this story is not to make a will and forget it. Sometimes it is better to die intestate than die with an old will that takes no account in changes in relationships and tax law. That lovely 10 year old you wanted to leave your estate to is now a 30 year old serial killer but still inherits because you did not review that 20 year old will. 

Also, with property prices increasing as they have, what may have looked like a fair and balanced will 20 years ago could look very lopsided now.  It may not have been the intent of a testator to distribute unequally, but changes in the value of assets could have that unintended consequence.

But this is all speculation - the testator might have been as  happy with their will and provisions when they died, as when it was written.

I made my will 5 years ago. I'm as happy today with the distribution as I was 5 years ago, and I expect I'll still  be happy with it in another 5 years - if not I'll be back to the Solicitors to have a new one. 

Ultimately the testator chose not to make a new will, and they're not around to answer questions, so the will must be taken as their definitive answer on the question of who should get their assets.