Solicitor advising against a will
Discussion
My Nan passed away recently and in sorting the estate my dad discovered that her assets (house, savings etc.) were all to be left in trust to his brother & be used to provide him an income. All good & what we all expected.
The trustee was specified as my dad & he’s also named executor of the will. Again, as expected.
But when visiting the family solicitor today, he was told that there was no need for a trust and his brother can inherit & be responsible for the house. Our concern is that my Uncle is a vulnerable adult and won’t be able to handle the responsibility.
So, is what the solicitor saying true, or do we need to act in accordance with the will and create a trust? Unfortunately it was both my Dad & his brother in the meeting with the Solicitor today and his brother is now under the impression that he can do what he pleases with the house? We’re worried that he’ll sell it & will slowly spend the money in its entirety & then be left with no income for the future. He doesn’t work & is on benefits currently & becoming a homeowner will reduce the benefits he’s entitled to claim, again - according to the solicitor (I haven’t checked this yet).
I’m going to get a second opinion from another solicitor but wondered in anyone in the PH could offer any insight before I start making calls.
The trustee was specified as my dad & he’s also named executor of the will. Again, as expected.
But when visiting the family solicitor today, he was told that there was no need for a trust and his brother can inherit & be responsible for the house. Our concern is that my Uncle is a vulnerable adult and won’t be able to handle the responsibility.
So, is what the solicitor saying true, or do we need to act in accordance with the will and create a trust? Unfortunately it was both my Dad & his brother in the meeting with the Solicitor today and his brother is now under the impression that he can do what he pleases with the house? We’re worried that he’ll sell it & will slowly spend the money in its entirety & then be left with no income for the future. He doesn’t work & is on benefits currently & becoming a homeowner will reduce the benefits he’s entitled to claim, again - according to the solicitor (I haven’t checked this yet).
I’m going to get a second opinion from another solicitor but wondered in anyone in the PH could offer any insight before I start making calls.
It really doesn't matter what the solicitor thinks is necessary.
If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
sociopath said:
It really doesn't matter what the solicitor thinks is necessary.
If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
There are certainly situations where a trust is specified in the will, but doesn’t have to be formed. My Dad’s will specified a trust that was supposed to help with reducing inheritance tax, but in the end it wasn’t needed, so the solicitor created another document that we as executors signed, that avoided having to do it.If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
outnumbered said:
sociopath said:
It really doesn't matter what the solicitor thinks is necessary.
If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
There are certainly situations where a trust is specified in the will, but doesn’t have to be formed. My Dad’s will specified a trust that was supposed to help with reducing inheritance tax, but in the end it wasn’t needed, so the solicitor created another document that we as executors signed, that avoided having to do it.If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
jules_s said:
outnumbered said:
sociopath said:
It really doesn't matter what the solicitor thinks is necessary.
If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
There are certainly situations where a trust is specified in the will, but doesn’t have to be formed. My Dad’s will specified a trust that was supposed to help with reducing inheritance tax, but in the end it wasn’t needed, so the solicitor created another document that we as executors signed, that avoided having to do it.If the will says a trust, then that is what the executor should do, and could be in bother for not doing it.
IANAL but the executor is there to carry out, or execute, the wishes of the deceased unless there's a damn good and legally explainable reason to do otherwise
yes the executor can do something different, but they need to be sure they're acting correctly, as they're on the spot if it goes wrong.
Just seems safer to me to do what the deceased wanted, as that's probably why they were named as executors, and the solicitor will just wash their hands if it if there's a problem at a later date.
In the Ops case, if there's a concern that things may go wrong with the beneficiary's behaviour later then the trust seems a sensible way to go, which could be why it was stipulated in the first place
in practice if everything to uncle and dad only trustee and executor AND they are both happy then could go against wishes
BUT the reason for the trust is the uncle's apparent vulnerability, and there is additional concern of affect on benefits
personally i would not be overly impressed with a solicitor who puts ideas into a vulnerable person's head, though Dad should have perhaps had initially meeting on his own anyway.
take further advice, may well need the benefits angle to dissuade uncle now
BUT the reason for the trust is the uncle's apparent vulnerability, and there is additional concern of affect on benefits
personally i would not be overly impressed with a solicitor who puts ideas into a vulnerable person's head, though Dad should have perhaps had initially meeting on his own anyway.
take further advice, may well need the benefits angle to dissuade uncle now
pork911 said:
in practice if everything to uncle and dad only trustee and executor AND they are both happy then could go against wishes
BUT the reason for the trust is the uncle's apparent vulnerability, and there is additional concern of affect on benefits
personally i would not be overly impressed with a solicitor who puts ideas into a vulnerable person's head, though Dad should have perhaps had initially meeting on his own anyway.
take further advice, may well need the benefits angle to dissuade uncle now
disagree. what may be nice/desirable what others think may be a good idea may not be legal.BUT the reason for the trust is the uncle's apparent vulnerability, and there is additional concern of affect on benefits
personally i would not be overly impressed with a solicitor who puts ideas into a vulnerable person's head, though Dad should have perhaps had initially meeting on his own anyway.
take further advice, may well need the benefits angle to dissuade uncle now
The sole beneficiary of a trust if an adult can require that to be paid to them in full. A trust is set up generally for minors ie under 18 or those with mental incapacity and held/invested on their behalf until they become an adult.
If the uncle is an adult and not classed as mentally incapable by the courts then he is fully entitled to have his benefit under the will paid to him in full and not in trust.
Was a "vulnerable beneficiary trust" set up?
It would be amiss of the solicitor NOT to inform the uncle that he could have the funds immediately as that appears from whats been said to be the legally correct thing.
more to read here. Im not disagreeing it may be a "sensible" thing to happen but legally may not be correct.
https://www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/trusts-for-vulnera...
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 17th November 08:54
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 17th November 08:55
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff