FIL died intestate

leespot wrote: »

They will be taking advice on how next to proceed with things because they are not comfortable signing away their rights to claim anything from the estate.

elsien wrote: »

Why do they not just tell her to take a running jump?

Just because the wife is requesting it doesn't mean they have to give it any consideration.

This ^.

No need to pay for advice - just say no. That's the end of the issue.

Leespot - may I suggest, as politely as I know how, that if you discuss this whole matter with an adviser or solicitor in the future, you make real effort to describe the people involved in the common terms for those individuals.

It is clear that your dislike/mistrust of your 'mother in law' 'the ex-wife' 'the FiL wife' ' has led to great confusion among readers of this thread. Why not just say "their mother" or "the widow" since anything that makes it easier to understand a situation is a good thing, don't you think?

You don't have to like your employer in order to make others understand who you are talking about when you mention 'the boss'.

Good luck with sorting out what is obviously a very complex and emotional situation.

I assume that in the sad circumstances, the two minors want to be re-united with their mother, and want to continue living in the family home; the usual aim is least disruption to the children re living arrangements and schooling. It sounds like these two lads are experiencing considerable disruption ( with mother's new partner in the picture as well) , and they have our sympathy. But as no other concerns about their welfare, or other suggestions for living arrangements, have been made, I will assume them staying in the house with their returned mother, plus now her new partner, is probably the situation that will prevail.

I don't get the sense that any of the older half-siblings are wanting to get their hands on their share NOW at the expense of further disrupting the young boys; they just, quite reasonably want to protect their share.

There is absolutely no reason for any of the older children should give up their right to their part of the inheritance, while accepting that, while the young sons need a home, and the only estate asset is the property, their share may share may need to be part-ownership of the home.

However, a further complication to be aware of is that a property cannot be owned by more than 4 people/trustees. The widow might be trying to simplify things by getting the older siblings to renounce their shares. The older siblings should not be pressurised into doing this, and are right to stand firm and seek legal advice. I'm not sure what structures/mechanisms/buy-outs will be necessary to make this situation work out. However, it must be possible, even if more complicated than usual.