Cowardly Will Question
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's the point. He doesn't want a say, beyond it going to his sisters' kids. He doesn't want to take a position in the stepchildren debate.
Fair enough then - but I think we can say skipping a generation and excluding step kids is definitely taking a position!It's definitely possible anyway
TownIdiot said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's the point. He doesn't want a say, beyond it going to his sisters' kids. He doesn't want to take a position in the stepchildren debate.
Fair enough then - but I think we can say skipping a generation and excluding step kids is definitely taking a position!TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's not excluding the step kids. He'll leave it to the kids of Mrs C. If the law excludes stepkids, so be it. If the 2 bio kids don't want to share with their step siblings, that's not his doing.
If it is standard practise in law for non genetically related family to not inherit then, by default, he is deliberately excluding them is he not?LimmerickLad said:
If it is standard practise in law for non genetically related family to not inherit then, by default, he is deliberately excluding them is he not?
This suggests it's a bit complicated, unless you are very specific https://simply.law/england-wales/articles/consider...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can he draft a will saying "I leave 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs B and 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs C" ? And leave to at that, without naming the children? Or does he have to name them? Problem is Mrs B has 3 kids and Mrs C has 2 kids and 2 stepkids.
He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
It won’t be Mrs C who has to decide how to split the 50% though, because the 50% isn’t being left to Mrs C; it’s being left to her children. It will be a fight between her biological children and her step children. And unless they can agree between them, then they, the testator and Mrs C can sit back and watch some lawyers eat into that 50% with some legal fees. He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
Deliberately ambiguous wills benefit lawyers, and absolutely no one else. The testator would be better off leaving a chunk of money to the Law Society, a chunk to the Bar Council, then tossing a coin to decide between all kids vs only biological kids.
LimmerickLad said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He's not excluding the step kids. He'll leave it to the kids of Mrs C. If the law excludes stepkids, so be it. If the 2 bio kids don't want to share with their step siblings, that's not his doing.
If it is standard practise in law for non genetically related family to not inherit then, by default, he is deliberately excluding them is he not?TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's the point. He doesn't want a say, beyond it going to his sisters' kids. He doesn't want to take a position in the stepchildren debate.
I don’t blame him. It’s not cowardly, he’s just doing exactly as he pleases with his estate. How the sisters and their children perceive it is up to them. I don’t have any step children in my family but if I did I’m fairly certain I’d only want y estate t go to blood relatives, and not children who i’m not biologically related to. By this I mean that if my son married a woman that already had kids, those kids can jog on!
Edited by The Gauge on Wednesday 27th November 21:48
BlackTails said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can he draft a will saying "I leave 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs B and 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs C" ? And leave to at that, without naming the children? Or does he have to name them? Problem is Mrs B has 3 kids and Mrs C has 2 kids and 2 stepkids.
He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
It won’t be Mrs C who has to decide how to split the 50% though, because the 50% isn’t being left to Mrs C; it’s being left to her children. It will be a fight between her biological children and her step children. And unless they can agree between them, then they, the testator and Mrs C can sit back and watch some lawyers eat into that 50% with some legal fees. He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
Deliberately ambiguous wills benefit lawyers, and absolutely no one else. The testator would be better off leaving a chunk of money to the Law Society, a chunk to the Bar Council, then tossing a coin to decide between all kids vs only biological kids.
TownIdiot said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Maybe, but his family won't know he knew that. The stepkids can blame the law, not him.
If you look at the link I posted above it's not quite that simple.Unless he's explicit in his wording.
BlackTails said:
It won’t be Mrs C who has to decide how to split the 50% though, because the 50% isn’t being left to Mrs C; it’s being left to her children. It will be a fight between her biological children and her step children.
So not only will Mr Coward fail to make it Mrs C's direct problem, he will potentially drive a wedge between the biological kids, who might be pressured to give up half their inheritances, and their step siblings.You could suggest he leaves it all to a cat charity, that would at least piss everyone off equally. Otherwise, Steve H's suggestion of unequal shares sounds reasonable.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BlackTails said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can he draft a will saying "I leave 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs B and 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs C" ? And leave to at that, without naming the children? Or does he have to name them? Problem is Mrs B has 3 kids and Mrs C has 2 kids and 2 stepkids.
He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
It won’t be Mrs C who has to decide how to split the 50% though, because the 50% isn’t being left to Mrs C; it’s being left to her children. It will be a fight between her biological children and her step children. And unless they can agree between them, then they, the testator and Mrs C can sit back and watch some lawyers eat into that 50% with some legal fees. He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
Deliberately ambiguous wills benefit lawyers, and absolutely no one else. The testator would be better off leaving a chunk of money to the Law Society, a chunk to the Bar Council, then tossing a coin to decide between all kids vs only biological kids.
If he does what is suggested, Mrs C, the step kids and the kids will all blame him for having deliberately created a time bomb set to go off after he dies. It’s facile to think isn’t his doing. No one will think that: I can pretty much guarantee that.
And in case I wasn’t clear: the only winners in this will be lawyers. Their win will be at the expense of C’s kids and stepkids, and the blame for that will fall squarely on the testator.
Cowards often have a way of rationalising their cowardice. Perhaps the testator will find a way to convince himself no one will blame him for the s
t show he creates, and will die happy. If so, that’s all he needs. He won’t feel bad after he’s dead. If though, as you say, he cares now that once he’s dead no one will blame him, well, he needs to think a bit harder and be more decisive.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Maybe, but his family won't know he knew that. The stepkids can blame the law, not him.
Is it not the case that once Probate is granted the will becomes a public document? It will be obvious then what his intentions were and no 'blaming the law'. They will know he knew they would be excluded. That then potentially sets the sister's family up for a big fall out between her, her husband, and the kids / step kids.
As nobody knows where the money is going until the will is executed, anything beforehand is speculation. He can say what he wants to the sisters now, whether that reflects the will or not.
In summary, he does not have to tell the truth before he dies but there is no hiding from it once he does.
C4ME said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Maybe, but his family won't know he knew that. The stepkids can blame the law, not him.
Is it not the case that once Probate is granted the will becomes a public document? It will be obvious then what his intentions were and no 'blaming the law'. They will know he knew they would be excluded. BlackTails said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BlackTails said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can he draft a will saying "I leave 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs B and 50% of my estate to the children of Mrs C" ? And leave to at that, without naming the children? Or does he have to name them? Problem is Mrs B has 3 kids and Mrs C has 2 kids and 2 stepkids.
He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
It won’t be Mrs C who has to decide how to split the 50% though, because the 50% isn’t being left to Mrs C; it’s being left to her children. It will be a fight between her biological children and her step children. And unless they can agree between them, then they, the testator and Mrs C can sit back and watch some lawyers eat into that 50% with some legal fees. He just wants to leave 50% to the kids of each sister, and Mrs C can have the fallout over whether to split her families half between just her biological kids or her own and her husband's kids from his 1st marriage.
Deliberately ambiguous wills benefit lawyers, and absolutely no one else. The testator would be better off leaving a chunk of money to the Law Society, a chunk to the Bar Council, then tossing a coin to decide between all kids vs only biological kids.
If he does what is suggested, Mrs C, the step kids and the kids will all blame him for having deliberately created a time bomb set to go off after he dies. It’s facile to think isn’t his doing. No one will think that: I can pretty much guarantee that.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff