Cowardly Will Question
Discussion
C4ME said:
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.
It's an interesting one.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.
I think alot of people would think it's totally normal to treat step-grandkids differently to grandkids.
I'd have thought it was more controversial to skip the actual children out, unless they were already wealthy.
Could a step grandchild reasonably expect equal treatment?
I'd say in most circumstances not
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Steve H said:
Is there any reason why the will can’t just allocate 25% of the estate each to two of the kids by name and 16.6% each to three others?
He could do, but that's including the step kids. he doesn't want to include or exclude them. He wants that to be Mrs C's problem. If, as said above, just saying children excludes step children, he'll be fine with that. No one (apart from me) will know he knew they would be excluded. After his death, he doesn't want Mrs C to think he excluded them. And he doesn't want Mrs B to think he included them to the financial detriment of his biological family. As I said in the title, cowardly.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Wednesday 27th November 20:43
1) Make an unambiguous will that might cause someone to think badly of you after you're dead.
or
2) Leave an ambiguous will that may cause a rift in the family after you've gone.
Seems an obvious choice.?
bompey said:
You can be as specific or ambiguous as you want.
Would a solicitor knowingly allow ambiguity? I don't know, but don't they have a duty to make sure Wills aren't ambiguous?I suppose he could simply not tell the solicitor about the stepkids. Or knock up a Will himself, but that's asking for trouble. Which seems to be what he wants!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How will they know? The will will say he leaves 50% to Mrs C's children. How will anyone know he knew that included or didn't include stepkids?
If it makes him feel better thinking that then all good. If he does not want the step kids to get anything he really should just say so in the will. It is not unusual to only leave to your biological family when second marriages are involved. They will likely all respect him more for being clear. Edited by C4ME on Wednesday 27th November 22:57
C4ME said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How will they know? The will will say he leaves 50% to Mrs C's children. How will anyone know he knew that included or didn't include stepkids?
If it makes him feel better thinking that then all good. If he does not want the step kids to get anything he really should just say so in the will. It is not unusual to only leave to your biological kids and they would probably all respect him more for being clear. eta as someone above said...the only winners will be solicitors if it goes wrong.........something I know only too well!
Edited by LimmerickLad on Wednesday 27th November 23:00
TownIdiot said:
I think alot of people would think it's totally normal to treat step-grandkids differently to grandkids..
Could a step grandchild reasonably expect equal treatment?
I'd say in most circumstances not
It really does depend on the circumstances, in my family I know one step child is treated same as Biological by their grandparents.Could a step grandchild reasonably expect equal treatment?
I'd say in most circumstances not
An interesting one to throw into the mix - does adopting a partners kid (which does happen) make then your own child in the eyes of the law?
If A left to c’s children & c had adopted them
(More common with widow/widowers where they have to think about where a child will live in the event of their death if there’s not another parent)
AndyAudi said:
It really does depend on the circumstances, in my family I know one step child is treated same as Biological by their grandparents.
An interesting one to throw into the mix - does adopting a partners kid (which does happen) make then your own child in the eyes of the law?
If A left to c’s children & c had adopted them
(More common with widow/widowers where they have to think about where a child will live in the event of their death if there’s not another parent)
I believe that it does. If they're formally adopted, then they're treated the same as biological children for inheritance purposes (including intestacy).An interesting one to throw into the mix - does adopting a partners kid (which does happen) make then your own child in the eyes of the law?
If A left to c’s children & c had adopted them
(More common with widow/widowers where they have to think about where a child will live in the event of their death if there’s not another parent)
i4got said:
Sounds like 2 potential outcomes.
1) Make an unambiguous will that might cause someone to think badly of you after you're dead.
or
2) Leave an ambiguous will that may cause a rift in the family after you've gone.
Seems an obvious choice.?
1) Make an unambiguous will that might cause someone to think badly of you after you're dead.
or
2) Leave an ambiguous will that may cause a rift in the family after you've gone.
Seems an obvious choice.?
One way round would be to leave £10k to each stepchild so they're not left out and divide the rest amongst the other children.
TownIdiot said:
C4ME said:
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.
It's an interesting one.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.
I think alot of people would think it's totally normal to treat step-grandkids differently to grandkids.
I'd have thought it was more controversial to skip the actual children out, unless they were already wealthy.
Could a step grandchild reasonably expect equal treatment?
I'd say in most circumstances not
Mr A is indeed a coward. Why not just do 20x4 10x2, everyone’s included, everyone gets a share, I don’t think step-GC would moan at that, I certainly wouldn’t, I’m expecting 0%!
W124Bob said:
Surely the easiest way to do this would be to leave the step children a specific nominal amount(or token items) and then divvy up the rest as a percentage to the remaining biological children.
This^^^^^^With a caveat that if anyone challenges the will they automatically lose their share.
I may have missed it but does Mr A want to also leave anything to his wife ?
Irrespective , his will is his affair and he should draw it up according to whatever he wants -Personally I would get this done by a professional and name the people he wants to leave to.
He can do this by percentage or "shares ".
Should then any of the beneficiaries named then want to do something different with their legacies they can as suggested already and simply do a Deed of Variation and they have 2 years from the date of his death in which to do so.
Irrespective , his will is his affair and he should draw it up according to whatever he wants -Personally I would get this done by a professional and name the people he wants to leave to.
He can do this by percentage or "shares ".
Should then any of the beneficiaries named then want to do something different with their legacies they can as suggested already and simply do a Deed of Variation and they have 2 years from the date of his death in which to do so.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
C4ME said:
If it makes him feel better thinking that then all good. If he does not want the step kids to get anything he really should just say so in the will.
He doesn't care if stepkids are included or not. He just doesn't want to make that decision. The executers don't change the will, only execute the will. They also do not make choices. A beneficiary can decide to reallocate their portion but it is at their sole discretion.
One way he removes the decision from himself is to make his sister the beneficiary, along with a desire she reallocates her portion between the children as she wishes. She can of course ignore his request and keep the money herself.
Edited by C4ME on Thursday 28th November 09:43
LimmerickLad said:
W124Bob said:
Surely the easiest way to do this would be to leave the step children a specific nominal amount(or token items) and then divvy up the rest as a percentage to the remaining biological children.
This^^^^^^With a caveat that if anyone challenges the will they automatically lose their share.
That foists the decision that the testator doesn’t care about/can’t bring himself to make onto someone else (Mrs B & Mrs C), and guarantees every child something between zero and everything.
It would also share the discontent evenly across Mrs B, Mrs C and all of the children.
Surely a decent specialist (probably a lawyer) of some kind could come up with some appropriate wording.
Also - what happens if the side of the family with stepkids undergoes changes between now and cowards passing? The sister may split from the father of the stepkids and remarry with no stepkids, or different stepkids. The other sister could also divorce and remarry.
A friend of mine had some issues recently. His Mum and Dad split about 30 years ago. His Dad re-married and died about 15 years ago. My friend was estranged from his Dad, didn't attend the funeral and had no idea about his will. He also had no interest. Recently, his Dad's 2nd Wife died, and it turned out that his Dad's will had stipulated that money went to all of his Grandchildren. My friend has 2 kids, his Sister has no kids. This resulted in my friend's side of the family getting "everything" and his Sister's side of the family getting nothing. This caused a huge upset and put great strain on the relationship between my friend's kids and their Auntie, and also their Grandma.
Whilst I fully understand his wish that 50% of his estate goes to the dependents of each Sister, and that he wants to make it the Sister's problem who gets what, there MUST be some wording or mechanism to make that happen and specialist advice is the way to go.
Also - what happens if the side of the family with stepkids undergoes changes between now and cowards passing? The sister may split from the father of the stepkids and remarry with no stepkids, or different stepkids. The other sister could also divorce and remarry.
A friend of mine had some issues recently. His Mum and Dad split about 30 years ago. His Dad re-married and died about 15 years ago. My friend was estranged from his Dad, didn't attend the funeral and had no idea about his will. He also had no interest. Recently, his Dad's 2nd Wife died, and it turned out that his Dad's will had stipulated that money went to all of his Grandchildren. My friend has 2 kids, his Sister has no kids. This resulted in my friend's side of the family getting "everything" and his Sister's side of the family getting nothing. This caused a huge upset and put great strain on the relationship between my friend's kids and their Auntie, and also their Grandma.
Whilst I fully understand his wish that 50% of his estate goes to the dependents of each Sister, and that he wants to make it the Sister's problem who gets what, there MUST be some wording or mechanism to make that happen and specialist advice is the way to go.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff