Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • biggamogs
    • By biggamogs 6th Jan 18, 1:52 AM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    biggamogs
    inheriting twice
    • #1
    • 6th Jan 18, 1:52 AM
    inheriting twice 6th Jan 18 at 1:52 AM
    My wife's grandmother has recently died without a will, we thought as my mother in law is an only child, this would not be too much of a problem, however it has since turned out that the man she thought was her uncle was in fact her brother. He was born when her mother was not married and was brought up by my MIL's grandparents as their son, while it seems that it was known about by my wife's grandmothers siblings it appears that it was kept from him and my MIL. When my MIL's grandparents died both without wills he inherited a share of their estate as their child. Since finding out he is my MIL's brother he is now claiming half of my wife's grandmothers estate.
    My MIL is accepting he only just found out he is her brother (although to me it seems a bit suspicious that as soon as the inheritance is being sorted out he suddenly finds out).


    This is all a mess but there 2 main questions.


    By accepting his part of the Grandparents estate is he accepting that he has been adopted by them and therefore excluding him from his mothers estate?


    If he accepted the grandparents inheritance in error does he have to return it to be shared between the my grandmothers 2 siblings and her estate?
Page 1
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 6th Jan 18, 2:34 AM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,486 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #2
    • 6th Jan 18, 2:34 AM
    • #2
    • 6th Jan 18, 2:34 AM
    My wife's grandmother has recently died without a will, we thought as my mother in law is an only child, this would not be too much of a problem, however it has since turned out that the man she thought was her uncle was in fact her brother. He was born when her mother was not married and was brought up by my MIL's grandparents as their son, while it seems that it was known about by my wife's grandmothers siblings it appears that it was kept from him and my MIL. When my MIL's grandparents died both without wills he inherited a share of their estate as their child. Since finding out he is my MIL's brother he is now claiming half of my wife's grandmothers estate.
    My MIL is accepting he only just found out he is her brother (although to me it seems a bit suspicious that as soon as the inheritance is being sorted out he suddenly finds out).


    This is all a mess but there 2 main questions.


    By accepting his part of the Grandparents estate is he accepting that he has been adopted by them and therefore excluding him from his mothers estate?


    If he accepted the grandparents inheritance in error does he have to return it to be shared between the my grandmothers 2 siblings and her estate?
    Originally posted by biggamogs
    Have you got the dates for this? What proof is there he is who he says he his? Simply accepting an inheritance wrongly because of lack of knowledge proves nothing certainly not adoption. The whole story sounds bizarre. A lot of proof acceptable to the court would be needed to overturn what has happened.
    Last edited by Yorkshireman99; 06-01-2018 at 11:30 AM.
    • MichelleUK
    • By MichelleUK 6th Jan 18, 9:24 AM
    • 355 Posts
    • 226 Thanks
    MichelleUK
    • #3
    • 6th Jan 18, 9:24 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Jan 18, 9:24 AM
    The most important thing is to find out if they were officially adopted by the grandparent, as this would change the normal intestacy flow.

    It was quite common for grandparents to raise an illegitimate child as their own but it was also common to do it officially by adoption, so as to allow the young mother a completely fresh start.
    • Margot123
    • By Margot123 6th Jan 18, 9:34 AM
    • 850 Posts
    • 877 Thanks
    Margot123
    • #4
    • 6th Jan 18, 9:34 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Jan 18, 9:34 AM
    It is up to the 'uncle/brother' to prove he is who he says he is. Anyone could make these claims.

    An officially-approved DNA test result will need to be accepted by the court, and that will be after much legal wrangling between solicitors. Call his bluff and see if he is willing to go along with that.

    This is a situation where emotions and family ties need to be put aside.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 6th Jan 18, 9:58 AM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,486 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #5
    • 6th Jan 18, 9:58 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Jan 18, 9:58 AM
    And prove legal adoption as well. Quite a lot of hurdles to be overcome. The onus is on him to prove it and bear the costs.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 6th Jan 18, 10:14 AM
    • 5,108 Posts
    • 5,693 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    • #6
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:14 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:14 AM
    It is up to the 'uncle/brother' to prove he is who he says he is. Anyone could make these claims.

    An officially-approved DNA test result will need to be accepted by the court, and that will be after much legal wrangling between solicitors. Call his bluff and see if he is willing to go along with that.

    This is a situation where emotions and family ties need to be put aside.
    Originally posted by Margot123
    All he needs is a copy of his birth certificate to prove who his mother was.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 6th Jan 18, 10:21 AM
    • 5,108 Posts
    • 5,693 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    • #7
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:21 AM
    • #7
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:21 AM
    And prove legal adoption as well. Quite a lot of hurdles to be overcome. The onus is on him to prove it and bear the costs.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99

    Surely he does not need to prove that, he is inheriting fron his birth mother not an adopted parent. If was adopted then they can no longer inherit from their birth mother, so that means it is down to the administrator to establish his adoption status.

    Sounds a bit like my GF he was brought up by his GPs, even though my GM married a year later. Like most of these private family arrangements no formal adoption ever took place.
    Last edited by Keep pedalling; 06-01-2018 at 10:25 AM.
    • PasturesNew
    • By PasturesNew 6th Jan 18, 10:24 AM
    • 62,818 Posts
    • 368,065 Thanks
    PasturesNew
    • #8
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:24 AM
    • #8
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:24 AM
    My guess is that he'd have not been officially adopted. Back then, inter-family, it just rarely happened unless the taker was taking the child because the parent was a danger to the child.

    This type of thing is quite common and normal - daughter gets pregnant, her parents take the child and the daughter gets on with her life. My gt-granny did it twice, with both her daughters' events.... and no adoption went on at all. It's just how people lived. The attitude was to just "take them in and bring them up", legal stuff was much less likely back then. It was also common to not tell the child.

    When I was growing up there was a LOT of this going on... if your daughter got pregnant and you could take the child in, you did that.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 6th Jan 18, 10:29 AM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,486 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    • #9
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:29 AM
    • #9
    • 6th Jan 18, 10:29 AM
    All he needs is a copy of his birth certificate to prove who his mother was.
    Originally posted by Keep pedalling
    This is not so. On the front of each birth certificate it says that it is NOT proof of identity. Anyone can buy a copy of a birth certificate by paying the fee. It proves absolutely nothing.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 6th Jan 18, 10:50 AM
    • 5,108 Posts
    • 5,693 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    This is not so. On the front of each birth certificate it says that it is NOT proof of identity. Anyone can buy a copy of a birth certificate by paying the fee. It proves absolutely nothing.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    It may not be proof of identity, but it is proof of who the mother gave birth to. This is not some total stranger that has come out of the woodwork, so proof of identity should be easy to establish especially as the OP says that other members of the family had knowledge of his true parentage, certainly no DNA test required in this case.
    Last edited by Keep pedalling; 06-01-2018 at 10:52 AM.
    • Manxman in exile
    • By Manxman in exile 6th Jan 18, 11:12 AM
    • 1,475 Posts
    • 1,117 Thanks
    Manxman in exile
    It may not be proof of identity, but it is proof of who the mother gave birth to. This is not some total stranger that has come out of the woodwork, so proof of identity should be easy to establish especially as the OP says that other members of the family had knowledge of his true parentage, certainly no DNA test required in this case.
    Originally posted by Keep pedalling

    That's what I was thinking. But is it perhaps better expressed as "proof of who the mother [of the uncle] was" rather than "proof of who the mother gave birth to"?


    Is another issue that most of the people who knew the "true" position are most likely dead by now? I wonder how "uncle" discovered he was brother if it had always been concealed from him?
    Last edited by Manxman in exile; 06-01-2018 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Deletion of repitition
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 6th Jan 18, 11:15 AM
    • 1,715 Posts
    • 2,318 Thanks
    badmemory
    It is always possible that the birth certificate shows the grandmother as the mother.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 6th Jan 18, 11:41 AM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,486 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    My guess is that he'd have not been officially adopted. Back then, inter-family, it just rarely happened unless the taker was taking the child because the parent was a danger to the child.

    This type of thing is quite common and normal - daughter gets pregnant, her parents take the child and the daughter gets on with her life. My gt-granny did it twice, with both her daughters' events.... and no adoption went on at all. It's just how people lived. The attitude was to just "take them in and bring them up", legal stuff was much less likely back then. It was also common to not tell the child.

    When I was growing up there was a LOT of this going on... if your daughter got pregnant and you could take the child in, you did that.
    Originally posted by PasturesNew
    You may well be right but it is a guess which simply is not enough in this case. Far more credence is given to birth certificates as a means of identity proof than should be. I once helped administer a small pesion fund with just fifty members employed in dairying. One new employee was unable to produce his birth certificate as his birth had never been registered. Fortunately with the help of several sworn statements were able to prove his parentage and get his birth regisatered. This was almost fifty years ago and was not a simple task by any means.
    Last edited by Yorkshireman99; 06-01-2018 at 11:52 AM.
    • PasturesNew
    • By PasturesNew 6th Jan 18, 11:45 AM
    • 62,818 Posts
    • 368,065 Thanks
    PasturesNew
    You may well be right but it is a guess which simply is not enough in this case.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    I wasn't saying it would be good enough - just that, back then, people didn't "adopt", they just took kids in .... so to expect the outcome to be that there wasn't an adoption.

    Of course all correct routes/documents need to be produced/seen so everybody knows what's what.
    • Margot123
    • By Margot123 6th Jan 18, 12:25 PM
    • 850 Posts
    • 877 Thanks
    Margot123
    There is a similar thread from a couple of months ago. The claimant had to prove via DNA as the court would not accept just the birth certificate.
    • Margot123
    • By Margot123 6th Jan 18, 12:28 PM
    • 850 Posts
    • 877 Thanks
    Margot123
    I wasn't saying it would be good enough - just that, back then, people didn't "adopt", they just took kids in .... so to expect the outcome to be that there wasn't an adoption.

    Of course all correct routes/documents need to be produced/seen so everybody knows what's what.
    Originally posted by PasturesNew
    This is very true and continued well into the 1970s, as far as I am aware.
    Seldom were the children officially adopted as there would have been shame brought on the family had they not simply 'got on with things' and allowed their daughters to have opportunities in life without the encumbrance of a child in addition to being ostracised .

    Times have changed a lot, thank goodness.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 6th Jan 18, 12:44 PM
    • 4,270 Posts
    • 3,486 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    I wasn't saying it would be good enough - just that, back then, people didn't "adopt", they just took kids in .... so to expect the outcome to be that there wasn't an adoption.

    Of course all correct routes/documents need to be produced/seen so everybody knows what's what.
    Originally posted by PasturesNew
    Apologies. When someone says "I guess" it sets alarm bells going because it often means they have no idea! As M123 rightly says the practice did continue a long time. As an amateur genealogist it caused me great confusion over a great uncle. I subsequently found out that his birth in the late nineteenth century had been registered as a son to his granny. The clue was in his registration when he joined the navy. When I mentioned it to another relative it produced a vitriolic denial which was really all the proof I really needed! A picture of him sat on his grandfather's knee inscribed saying it was his grandson produced more bluster!
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 6th Jan 18, 1:27 PM
    • 5,108 Posts
    • 5,693 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    There is a similar thread from a couple of months ago. The claimant had to prove via DNA as the court would not accept just the birth certificate.
    Originally posted by Margot123
    I think you mean this one.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5718719

    As in virtually all cases requiring DNA testing it relates to paternity, requiring a DNA test to prove you are your motherís child would only be needed if their was any doubt about your identity or if their was no documentation of the birth.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,914Posts Today

6,771Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin