Cowardly Will Question

[PV7998]

I don't think the question has yet been asked: "Who will be the executors of this will?" because the task of allocating shares in the deceased estate will fall to them, not to Mrs B and Mrs C (unless he names them as executors).

If he wants someone outside the family to make the decision about the step children he'll probably be better off by having a solicitor as executor who will (hopefully) make the decision based on the law and current practice and is also prbably less likely to have his/her decision challenged than Mr B and Mrs C.

Bloke in a pub disclaimer

[Hol]

One presumes that the stepchildren’s genetic grandparents will be considering a similar approach.

[TownIdiot]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's 5 bio kids, and 2 stepkids. How does leaving money to 6 kids work?

May as well go the whole hog and pick on one of them.
Make it a proper bun fight

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

It may be the easiest way, but it totally negates what he is trying to achieve.

These are his requirements.

1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.

He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.

I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".

[TownIdiot]

When is this fella going to die?

It's going to be really irritating not knowing the outcome if it's not on the horizon.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TownIdiot said:

When is this fella going to die?

It's going to be really irritating not knowing the outcome if it's not on the horizon.

Within the next few months. I'm not sure I'll ever get to hear the outcome myself, as I don't know the family. But I've given him the advice he needs so it's being left 50% to the kids of Mrs B & 50% to the kids of Mrs C. With no kids being specifically named.

Thanks to bompey for providing the actual answer I was after. And to everyone else for contributing toward an entertaining little thread.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 28th November 12:19

[alscar]

I think I'm already feeling for the Executors.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

alscar said:

I think I'm already feeling for the Executors.

I hope it's the two sisters. That would be great entertainment. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

[C4ME]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It may be the easiest way, but it totally negates what he is trying to achieve.

These are his requirements.

1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.

He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.

I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".

The way he is doing it with the 50/50 method

The kids of Mrs B
B-Bio1 gets 16.66%
B-Bio2 gets 16.66%
B-Bio3 gets 16.66%

The kids of Mrs C
either
C-Bio1 gets 25%
C-Bio2 gets 25%
C-Step1 gets 0%
C-Step2 gets 0%
or
C-Bio1 gets 12.5%
C-Bio2 gets 12.5%
C-Step1 gets 12.5%
C-Step2 gets 12.5%

Unless he has favourite nephews and nieces, the 50/50 seems rather flawed, particularly between B & C biological.

He would be better
either
Giving all seven of them 14.28% each
or
Giving the five biological 16.66% each and the two step 8.33% each

The last option is the most likely to make everyone happy IMO.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

C4ME said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It may be the easiest way, but it totally negates what he is trying to achieve.

These are his requirements.

1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.

He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.

I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".

The way he is doing it with the 50/50 method

The kids of Mrs B
B-Bio1 gets 16.66%
B-Bio2 gets 16.66%
B-Bio3 gets 16.66%

The kids of Mrs C
either
C-Bio1 gets 25%
C-Bio2 gets 25%
C-Step1 gets 0%
C-Step2 gets 0%
or
C-Bio1 gets 12.5%
C-Bio2 gets 12.5%
C-Step1 gets 12.5%
C-Step2 gets 12.5%

Unless he has favourite nephews and nieces, the 50/50 seems rather flawed, particularly between B & C biological.

If he was leaving the money to his sisters 50/50, which is what would happen in most cases, then if they died without spending any of the money, that's exactly what would happen anyway. So what's the problem?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

C4ME said:

He would be better
either
Giving all seven of them 14.28% each
or
Giving the five biological 16.66% each and the two step 8.33% each

The last option is the most likely to make everyone happy IMO.

But then he's making a decision, on whether to treat bio kids and step kids equally or not, and that's exactly what he is looking to avoid!!!!

[llewop]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But then he's making a decision, on whether to treat bio kids and step kids equally or not, and that's exactly what he is looking to avoid!!!!

Unless he blabs; he'll be dead by then, in which case; so what? or is it that the relationship between his sisters is so messed up that will get twisted somehow!?

From the snippets you've let on; sounds like a mixed up mess and no matter what he decides, or fails to appear to decide; at least one of his siblings is going to get the hump!

Other than wanting to skip the siblings, don't bother with a will at all, then nature/law will play out as it falls with even less of a decision appearing to have been made... or not.

[Richard-D]

This solicitor's site appears to make it pretty clear:-

https://www.girlings.com/latest/writing-a-will-wit...

Assuming that's correct (your solicitor will of course advise, I don't claim to know), step children need to be mentioned specifically to be included.


With that in mind, there is potential for the estate to be reduced by legal challenges as a result of leaving anything with room for interpretation.

Edited by Richard-D on Thursday 28th November 20:05

[C4ME]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

C4ME said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It may be the easiest way, but it totally negates what he is trying to achieve.

These are his requirements.

1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.

He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.

I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".

The way he is doing it with the 50/50 method

The kids of Mrs B
B-Bio1 gets 16.66%
B-Bio2 gets 16.66%
B-Bio3 gets 16.66%

The kids of Mrs C
either
C-Bio1 gets 25%
C-Bio2 gets 25%
C-Step1 gets 0%
C-Step2 gets 0%
or
C-Bio1 gets 12.5%
C-Bio2 gets 12.5%
C-Step1 gets 12.5%
C-Step2 gets 12.5%

Unless he has favourite nephews and nieces, the 50/50 seems rather flawed, particularly between B & C biological.

If he was leaving the money to his sisters 50/50, which is what would happen in most cases, then if they died without spending any of the money, that's exactly what would happen anyway. So what's the problem?

There is really nothing to say the sisters are more important to him than the nieces and nephews. The sisters are either already financially secure or he hates them, can’t quite work it out

If 50/50 is how he specifically wants to do it then of course that is how it should be done.

Edited by C4ME on Thursday 28th November 20:34

[C4ME]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

C4ME said:

He would be better
either
Giving all seven of them 14.28% each
or
Giving the five biological 16.66% each and the two step 8.33% each

The last option is the most likely to make everyone happy IMO.

But then he's making a decision, on whether to treat bio kids and step kids equally or not, and that's exactly what he is looking to avoid!!!!

He ought to accept he is making a decision, unless he does the discretionary trust idea (he could do the discretionary trust just for Mrs C‘s portion). If not, nobody gets to choose for him after he is dead. If he says “children of C” then the biological children of C get 25% each and the steps get nothing. If he says “children and step children of C” then each of the 4 get 12.5%. The executors can neither influence not alter that decision.

Edited by C4ME on Thursday 28th November 20:28

[Richard-D]

I'm going to go against the majority of people on this thread and say that I have some sympathy for the guy's position here. These are not easy things to talk about for everyone and this is compounded by different perceptions of what is 'fair'. He's already doing better than a hell of a lot of people by tackling the issue at all. If the OP is open to advice I would offer that his friend should give very careful consideration to who the executor should be and make his intentions clear to them.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

C4ME said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

C4ME said:

He would be better
either
Giving all seven of them 14.28% each
or
Giving the five biological 16.66% each and the two step 8.33% each

The last option is the most likely to make everyone happy IMO.

But then he's making a decision, on whether to treat bio kids and step kids equally or not, and that's exactly what he is looking to avoid!!!!

He ought to accept he is making a decision, unless he does the discretionary trust idea (he could do the discretionary trust just for Mrs C‘s portion). If not, nobody gets to choose for him after he is dead. If he says “children of C” then the biological children of C get 25% each and the steps get nothing. If he says “children and step children of C” then each of the 4 get 12.5%. The executors can neither influence not alter that decision.

Edited by C4ME on Thursday 28th November 20:28

He is going to say "the children of". If that means step kids are excluded, he's not bothered. But the point is, Mrs C and the step kids won't know he knew that at the time he made the will.

[Mojooo]

its not cowardly its spiteful

[C4ME]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He is going to say "the children of". If that means step kids are excluded, he's not bothered. But the point is, Mrs C and the step kids won't know he knew that at the time he made the will.

Having not left Mrs C any say in the matter plus excluding the step children, she and her family will have strong feelings on the subject and he will get the blame.

Weird way of trying to manage your reputation after death.

Edited by C4ME on Friday 29th November 03:52

[Zeeky]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He wants to be a coward and not deal with the stepkid inclusion issue at all. 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.

.


He could leave Mr's B's 50% share directly to her kids in equal shares and Mrs C's 50% share to Mrs C and Mr A's solicitor to hold in a discretionary trust with the named beneficaries including Mrs C's 2 kids, and her 2 step-kids. (I presume this would meet the requirement of Mr A not wanting to leave the 50% share of the Estate to MrsC because she is merely a trustee,not a beneficiary).

In addition, Mr A leaves a letter of wishes stating he would like Mrs C to decide in which shares the beneficiaries should receive the 50% share of the Estate.