Wording of charity legacy

DippySkippy

Savvy_Sue said:

I can foresee one difficulty.

I am one of your beneficiaries. I have fallen on hard times and I am either in receipt of means tested benefits, OR the council is paying for me to live in a care home. 

Damned if I do, damned if I don't (deliberate deprivation of assets).

OR I don't need your bequest, AND I have fallen out with one of your other beneficiaries. I will deliberately deprive everyone else of your bequest.

Pity the poor executors ... Not going to be easy or inexpensive to resolve.

Not a problem - the exec has power to distribute amongst those beneficiaries that do agree 

DippySkippy

sheramber said:

Why not just say the charities get 10% of the residual estate?  Why involve the beneficiaries?

Residual estate   £50k

Do both get 10% x £50k or does one 10% of 50k and the other gets 10% of 50k less the 10% given to charity A?

The whole point is to specify % to charity as they will haggle - but you don't want to specify fixed amount in will as circumstances will change. This gives the exec the ability to set a fixed cash legacy at the point of death.

saajan_12

DippySkippy said:

On the face of it I think this solves the conundrum in that it allows determination of the fixed cash legacy to the charity based on estate value at death. Cant see how charity could challenge this or why they would bother to. Though I am suspicious its this simple as otherwise wouldnt solicitors suggest it (oh - but they are solicitors), unless the charity hassle is a recent thing

Isn't the issue that if say the estate included a house, they might push for a higher priced sale so that the estate is larger so that their x% is higher? So anything that refers to a % of the sale has the same issue. With wording, couldn't the charity just sue the beneficiary/ies for not accurately abiding by the deed of variation, ie the house was actually worth £yy more so the x% is actually higher.. 

SadCodeMan said:

I give a sum of between 9% and 11% of the estate to the charity. The exact sum to be at the entire discretion of the Executor.

There are still the other worries about the charity being keen to chase up property selling (or whatever) but
a) It gives fewer areas where they might challenge the amount they get.
b) If they are a pain duriung the process, the Executor at least has the option of going for the lower level...

It does have the benfit of being (relatively) simpler though.

That jsut creates the same problem but around 9%.. they could still argue certain assets in the estate are worth more so the estate is larger so 9% is higher. 

DippySkippy

saajan_12 said:

DippySkippy said:

On the face of it I think this solves the conundrum in that it allows determination of the fixed cash legacy to the charity based on estate value at death. Cant see how charity could challenge this or why they would bother to. Though I am suspicious its this simple as otherwise wouldnt solicitors suggest it (oh - but they are solicitors), unless the charity hassle is a recent thing

Isn't the issue that if say the estate included a house, they might push for a higher priced sale so that the estate is larger so that their x% is higher? So anything that refers to a % of the sale has the same issue. With wording, couldn't the charity just sue the beneficiary/ies for not accurately abiding by the deed of variation, ie the house was actually worth £yy more so the x% is actually higher.. 

The charity couldn't push for higher price - the deed is for a fixed amount. The deed of variance doesn't mention a %. Of course they might challenge that the deed is incorrect as the execs got the value wrong but I don't think they could. What would be annoying if house sold for significantly less than death valuation the charity gets more - but conversely they lose if prices rise.

SadCodeMan

saajan_12 said:

SadCodeMan said:

I give a sum of between 9% and 11% of the estate to the charity. The exact sum to be at the entire discretion of the Executor.

There are still the other worries about the charity being keen to chase up property selling (or whatever) but
a) It gives fewer areas where they might challenge the amount they get.
b) If they are a pain duriung the process, the Executor at least has the option of going for the lower level...

It does have the benfit of being (relatively) simpler though.

That jsut creates the same problem but around 9%.. they could still argue certain assets in the estate are worth more so the estate is larger so 9% is higher. 

There may be other problems but this is not one of them.

The 2% band and the fact the Executor has the discreation of what to pay within that band is there to removes much of that issue.

They can pay a reasonably near to 10% figure and should be clear of the two sides.

If the charity agues the estate is worth 10% more than the Executor states (and that is quite a bit) they are still within the lower band of 9%.

But, the person who's will it is also can be happy that the charity is getting the sort of amount that was intended.