Inheritance dependence nightmare

NorthYorkie

Loolah001: This is confusing! There seem to be two properties and you say the will says "In respect of G the right to reside at this property" What is "this property". Is it the one you say was sold 5 years ago or the one you now say is unoccupied?
Please clarify.

Grumpy_chap

Loolah001 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Loolah001 said:

she is refusing to allow us any personal effects or give back items that have to be sold as part of the estate.

Well, looking a the extract from the Will that you have shared, there is:
 - Property A at which the girlfriend can live rent free for the remainder of her life
 - Property B which is let out and the girlfriend can have the rental income (presumably assuming the responsibilities of LL as well) for the remainder of her life.
When the girlfriend passes, both properties then go to the two daughters.

The extract from the Will also says "GIVE the furniture, fittings and personal belongings that I own at Property A to the girlfriend".  So, are there any personal effects or items that have to be sold as part of the Estate that would not be at Property A?

The complexity that arises seems to boil down to the simple question (but not necessarily simple answer) that, as Property A has been sold and replaced with Property C, does "Property C" replace "Property A" in the Will?

A Solicitor should be able to advise on the interpretation and implementation of the above question as a fairly routine and matter of fact matter.

The solicitor said property c does not replace a or b but to minimise a claim on inheritance a variance can be added to the will however the property is empty as she isn’t living there so it is depreciating 

Is the Solicitor supposing / expecting there might be a claim on the inheritance from the girlfriend, or just advising you that could be an outcome?
It is appropriate for the Solicitor to alert you to what could happen, but that does not mean it will happen or would be successful.

So, the Will reads:
 - Property A at which the girlfriend can live for life.  Property A is no more and not replaced by property C, so this fails.
 - Property B which is let out and the girlfriend has the rental income for the remainder of her life.
Both property A and B (now only property will be inherited to the two daughters when the girlfriend passes.

Then there is property C which is not mentioned in the Will so this, presumably, has to be part of the Residual Estate.
Property C is currently vacant.  A vacant property will not depreciate as such unless the time span becomes very extended such that disrepair sets in.  Not just a few months.  The Estate will be liable to meet bills arising in connection with this property - for example - heating to protect from frost damage.
It also seems, to me at least, beholden upon the Executors to secure this property and the contents.  This might mean changing the locks.  For some reason the Solicitor seems to have advised against this action:

Loolah001 said:

The girlfriend has been living with her daughter and the solicitor has advised we cannot change the locks as the property hasn’t had the variation completed
only the girlfriend has access to the property and any items in the home. The car etc

Why is the Solicitor advising that?
The home "C" is not occupied and now the property of the Estate.  It does not need a variation to the Will for the Executors to take reasonable steps to protect the assets of the Estate so that all assets can be distributed in accordance with the Will.

If the Solicitor has advised that property "C" does not replace property "A", why is a variation to the Will still being referenced?
Why doesn't the Solicitor consider that property "C" simply becomes Residual Estate?
How does the Will deal with Residual Estate?
Who are the "Remaindermen"?

Loolah001 said:

the will states about a former named house that was sold 5 years ago and a probate solicitor has advised to minimise a claim against his estate by his girlfriend we vary the will and add in the new address 

Why does the Solicitor think that a claim on the Estate will be made by the girlfriend?
What comments has the Solicitor made about how successful such a claim would be?

If this was a claim under "dependency" then it is not obviously clear that the girlfriend would be successful.
The girlfriend is not living at the property "C" so she is not losing her home.
Even with the use of property "A" for lifetime failing (because property "A" is no longer in the Estate), the Will still makes provision for the girlfriend by way of the rental income arising from property "B".
So, this is not a Will that leaves the girlfriend destitute.

Has the Solicitor commented in this regard?

Who has engaged (and paying the fees for) the services of the Probate Solicitor?


Finally, as the OP has professional advisor engaged, the OP must take advice from the Solicitor above anything that the commenters in the forum make.  The forum can be a useful sounding board to think things through but cannot replace a professional with access to the full facts.
Sometimes, however, the professional may need prompting towards full and helpful answers as they can assume a level of knowledge by the lay-person that is not necessarily held by the lay-person.

Grumpy_chap

Additionally to my comments just above, because Property "A" has been sold and that element of the Will fails, I would also consider that the part of the Will that leaves "furniture, fittings and personal belongings that I own at Property A" to the girlfriend also fails and those assets (presumably now at property "C") become part of the Residual Estate.

Loolah001

NorthYorkie said:

Loolah001: This is confusing! There seem to be two properties and you say the will says "In respect of G the right to reside at this property" What is "this property". Is it the one you say was sold 5 years ago or the one you now say is unoccupied?
Please clarify.

Property a was sold 5 years ago as the will was not updated it still refers to the property a. Property b was where they resided until property c was bought(which is the property that is unoccupied currently).
there is only property c now as property a and b were sold before my dad passed away.

WillowLeaf

so the girlfriend is living in property D now?

Grumpy_chap

WillowLeaf said:

so the girlfriend is living in property D now?

The OP previously said:

Loolah001 said:

The girlfriend has been living with her daughter 

Though I think it is new information to the thread that property "B" was also disposed of prior to the OP's father's death.  Up until the latest note from the OP, the impression I had was that the property "B" was still retained and let out with the girlfriend entitled to the rental income until she died after which property "B" would pass to the two daughters.

It would help if the OP could provide a clarification on the properties referenced in the Will and properties still owned.
Give there appear to have been two properties sold in the five years or so prior to death, where have the proceeds of these properties gone?

NorthYorkie

So, there was only one property (C) in father's estate. Properties A and B were both sold and so the girlfriend' life interest in A fails and so does her life interest in the income generated from the letting of B. There is then the question of the sales proceeds of A and B; were these used to purchase C? The will seems to be silent on the use of these proceeds and the girlfriend has not been given any right of occupation of C, so it would seem that C falls into the residue along with all other assets. The girlfriend therefore gets nothing, unless she is also a residuary beneficiary. Is she??

Loolah001

Grumpy_chap said:

WillowLeaf said:

so the girlfriend is living in property D now?

The OP previously said:

Loolah001 said:

The girlfriend has been living with her daughter 

Though I think it is new information to the thread that property "B" was also disposed of prior to the OP's father's death.  Up until the latest note from the OP, the impression I had was that the property "B" was still retained and let out with the girlfriend entitled to the rental income until she died after which property "B" would pass to the two daughters.

It would help if the OP could provide a clarification on the properties referenced in the Will and properties still owned.
Give there appear to have been two properties sold in the five years or so prior to death, where have the proceeds of these properties gone?

Property A and property B were sold prior to death - the funds were put into stocks and shares and a boat was bought that has been sold upon his death and the monies added to the estate which is being sorted by a probate solicitor. The probate solicitor has advised they have never come across the issue of properties sold and new properties bought? I’m lost

Loolah001

NorthYorkie said:

So, there was only one property (C) in father's estate. Properties A and B were both sold and so the girlfriend' life interest in A fails and so does her life interest in the income generated from the letting of B. There is then the question of the sales proceeds of A and B; were these used to purchase C? The will seems to be silent on the use of these proceeds and the girlfriend has not been given any right of occupation of C, so it would seem that C falls into the residue along with all other assets. The girlfriend therefore gets nothing, unless she is also a residuary beneficiary. Is she??

No she is not a beneficiary in the will

Loolah001

WillowLeaf said:

so the girlfriend is living in property D now?

The girlfriend is currently residing with her daughter elsewhere